Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Charlotte Leon

Stockton University

Capstone Project for Stockton University PSM Program

Advisor: Dr. Elizabeth Lacey

December 20, 2021

1
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Table of Contents:

Abstract …………….…………….…………….…………….…………….……………………..3

Introduction…………….…………….…………….…………….…………….………………….4

Methodology…………….…………….…………….…………….…………….……………….9

Results…………….…………….…………….…………….…………….……………………...13

Discussion…………….…………….…………….…………….…………….………………….18

References………….…………….…………….…………….…………….…………………….25

Appendices………….…………….…………….…………….…………….…………………...30

Signature Page…………….…………….…………….…………….…………….…………......36

2
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

I. Abstract

Seagrasses, or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), provide important ecosystem

services as they prevent erosion from currents and storm events, are blue carbon sinks, and

provide habitat for commercially and recreationally important species (Adams et al., 2016).

Seagrass growth is dependent on specific light, temperature, salinity, and soil properties like total

organic content (TOC) and soil grain size (fractions of sand, silt, clay). From previous analysis of

datasets with only SAV, it was determined that TOC and grain size were the strongest

determinant of SAV presence. The objective of this study was to expand the database to include

datasets with both SAV presence and absence along with the soil properties, completing

laboratory analysis when certain data was not available. A logistic regression was used to

determine that no relationship existed between soil TOC and SAV presence/absence. It was

determined that grain size was a strong predictor of SAV presence/absence, with a 50%

likelihood of encountering SAV when the soil contained 79% sand, 13% silt, and 9% clay.

Seagrasses grow best in soils composed mostly of large grains as the large grains leave pores in

the soil for oxygen to be absorbed by seagrass roots. Oxygen can not infiltrate between small

grain particles like clay, limiting available oxygen in the soil and preventing the seagrasses from

sustaining their aerobic metabolism (Borum et al., 2007). This study is the first to have

determined the minimum soil conditions conducive to SAV presence. As additional studies are

added to the database, these numbers can be refined and utilized in restoration activities, where

site selection is a key determinant of project success. The results from the analysis of this

database can then be used for those restoration or mitigation projects as proxies for SAV

presence/absence when surveys of SAV cannot or have not been completed.

3
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

II. Introduction:

Seagrass communities, made up of individual shoots, have both ecological and economic

importance for the areas they grow in. Ecologically, seagrasses serve as a food source for marine

animals as well as nursery habitat for juvenile fish. Seagrasses hold economic value by serving

as a shoreline buffer to prevent erosion during wave activity and storm surges, reducing the need

for shoreline restoration efforts after repeated storm activity. Wave energy over bare seafloor is

stronger than wave energy moving above vegetated seafloor (Hansen and Reidenbach, 2013),

which reduces erosional factors. In addition to reducing wave energy, seagrasses decrease the

quantity of suspended particles in the water column (Hansen and Reidenbach, 2013), increasing

water clarity and further supporting seagrass growth.

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) growth depends on a variety of factors ranging

from water depth, clarity, nutrient levels, ambient sunlight, temperature and soil properties like

grain size and organic content. Climate change induced rises in temperature and sea level rise, as

well as physical anthropogenic disturbances to the sea floor, can change these factors and impact

SAV abundance. If water quality conditions do not meet the threshold for SAV growth and

development, SAV presence among estuaries will decline. Water quality variables including light

attenuation, temperature, and water depth and nutrient and sediment pollution both affect water

quality and can result in a decline in SAV productivity (Staver and Staver, 1993). Eutrophication

often leads to algal blooms that can decrease the total dissolved oxygen levels in the water and

reduce water clarity. Sediment pollution resulting from either natural or anthropogenic

disturbance often leads to an increase in water turbidity from increased levels of suspended

sediment entering the water column. With increased turbidity, water clarity and available light

4
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

reaching the benthic level of the water column where seagrasses grow is reduced, preventing

growth (Staver and Staver, 1993).

Similar to increasing turbidity, as the depth of water increases, the available light

reaching the seafloor and the SAV also decreases. Areas where seagrasses could once grew will

no longer be suitable habitats for SAV growth and reproduction due to these changes in light

availability. These factors are crucial for SAV growth and recruitment and could render these

habitats inhabitable for seagrasses. With less available light, photosynthetic rates will decrease,

resulting in slow or no vegetative growth. As water depths increase, temperatures will decrease,

which may also cause a decline in SAV growth as the habitat is no longer in optimal range

(Waycott et al. 2007).

Adversely, global sea temperature rising can also stunt seagrass growth and cause

previously successful seagrass habitats to become barren. With sea surface temperatures

expected to rise by 0.4 to 1.1°C by 2025, the implications of this temperature rise will impact all

marine organisms, including seagrasses. Although temperature tolerance is species dependent,

with some tropical species experiencing greater rates of photosynthesis as water temperatures

increase, some subtropical species are not able to persist outside of their thermal ranges (Evans et

al., 1986). Mid-Atlantic seagrasses are not tolerant to warmer temperatures and have been known

to experience extreme leaf shedding during warming events. Seagrasses that are not thermal

tolerant are also at a disadvantage to survival with the anticipated shifts in climate. As water

temperatures increase, soluble CO2 gas levels in the water will decrease. With declining CO2

levels, these seagrass species will have less CO2 gas available for photosynthesis exchange,

resulting in less growth and productivity (Waycott et al., 2007).

In addition to a seagrass species thermal tolerance, seagrasses are limited in distribution

5
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

based on soil content. Differences in soil composition can lead to varying levels of nutrient

availability and can render some locations inhabitable. Soil type and the total organic carbon

content of the soil are factors that influence what type of seagrasses will grow initially. Although

generational shifts of seagrass populations from sedimentation changes are not well studied, an

increase in available light to seagrass beds can be observed as turbidity levels are reduced (de

Boer, 2007) and soils settle out of the water column into the soil. With increased ambient light

due to greater water clarity from this reduced turbidity, seagrasses are then in an environment

with better growing conditions. Erosion caused by either anthropogenic or natural forces can

cause carbon content to decrease as the soil loosens and nutrients are lost into the water column

(Hillmann et al., 2020). With resuspended sediment and nutrients present in the water columns,

macroalgae and sulfur deposits can persist, consuming available dissolved oxygen. This creation

of anoxic conditions in the water can inhibit the growth of SAV (Madsen, 2021).

If the soil type is too fine with clay sized particles, the dense soil material will have high

levels of organic matter which will decrease oxygen levels in the soil (Koch, 2001). If the soil is

too coarse with sandy particles, wave action can erode the seagrass bed material more easily,

destroying current seagrass beds and preventing further SAV development (Koch, 2001).

However, the presence of seagrasses themselves are able to create their own feedback loops

influencing soil sedimentation patterns as a result of seagrasses slowing current velocity. When

seagrasses are present, the canopy can slow the movement of water passing through the water

column, resulting in a greater rate of nutrients falling over the soil, and later infiltration into the

substrate (Adhitya et al., 2016). This is known as ‘sediment trapping’ (de Boer, 2007). By

reducing current velocity, seagrasses increase the rate of particle sedimentation and decrease

resuspension. These effects on hydrodynamics can impact the soil within the seagrass beds. An

6
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

increase in nutrient availability has been reported among other studies, as well as an increase in

organic matter, increased soil height, and faster rates of seagrass burial (de Boer, 2007). Some

studies have found no correlation between TOC levels with SAV presence/biomass ​(Hillmann et

al., 2020). The organic carbon that has been sequestered and accumulated within an aquatic

environment is referred to as ‘blue carbon’ and has been found to have large variability and

could possibly be seagrass species dependent (Hillmann et al., 2020). This may be due to the fact

that the flexibility of individual SAV blades vary among species and can change the rate of

sedimentation, resulting in varying rates of carbon accumulation (Nakayama et al., 2020).

Thorough analysis on the relationship between grain size, organic content, and SAV presence or

potential presence are lacking.

Considering all of the factors necessary in determining SAV growth discussed above, a

preliminary study by Dr. Elizabeth Lacey, Stockton University, modeled the effects of these

factors as a predictive tool for SAV presence. The initial model was created based on the results

from two projects, totaling eleven long term SAV monitoring sites. Based on the results of this

model, SAV presence and absence was strongly determined by two primary factors: total organic

content and sediment grain size (E. Lacey, unpublished). In order to utilize this model output as

a predictive tool, there is a need to establish threshold values of TOC and grain size at which

SAV can be supported (or not be supported). Determining threshold values of the primary

determining factors, TOC and sediment grain size, could then be used when planning coastal

remediation projects and erosion mitigation efforts, as the effects of climate change become

more severe. Following these storm events, shorelines are left vulnerable to erosion without the

seagrasses serving as a buffer from wave action. If the impacts of sea level rise and increased

storm surges due to climate change continue, previous seagrass habitats can become altered and

7
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

potentially no longer serve as suitable SAV habitat. Understanding what site conditions must

exist for the growth of SAV could lead to a greater success rate of SAV recruitment. If a

correlation existed between vegetated/bare sites to their soil properties, future SAV development

could be predicted based on the site's soil properties (Widdows et a., 2008).

The objectives of this project were to: (1) expand upon the existing database to include

additional datasets of sites with SAV present as well as those datasets where there was no SAV

present, (2) supplement the data from these additional datasets with laboratory analyses to

include the parameters of interest (grain size and organic content), (3) reanalyze the database

with the additional datasets to determine significant relationships, and (4) determine the

threshold values of the parameters of interest in reaching a majority likelihood of encountering

SAV.

It was hypothesized that SAV presence creates a positive feedback loop, with SAV

effectively reducing turbidity and increasing water clarity to further promote SAV expansion

(Hestir et al., 2016). With continuous replenishment of fine- and coarse-sized soil (Abdelrhman,

2003; Work, 2021) and increased light availability through decreased turbidity (Kalra et al.,

2020), a positive feedback loop is generated promoting further settlement of suspended particles

and supports SAV bed expansion (Bouma et al., 2007). The settled material onto the seagrass

beds contains organic matter and a range of sediment grain sizes (Agawin and Duarte, 2002),

both of which play a role in SAV growth. A negative feedback loop would be classified if SAV

absence led to further soil removal due to erosional factors, without suspended soil particles

being deposited to the SAV bed sites (Koch, 2001). Without the necessary settlement of soil

particles, SAV growth and expansion would not be possible (Howard, 2021). Based on the

preliminary model, it is hypothesized that TOC and grain size will have a significant relationship

8
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

to SAV presence, with low TOC values and larger grain sizes indicating higher likelihood of

encountering SAV.

III. Methodology

To meet the project objectives, a database of soil total organic content (TOC), soil grain

size, and submerged aquatic vegetation presence/absence was curated with the information

obtained from completed fieldwork and laboratory analysis in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Eleven

sites were part of the initial database and an additional 111 sites were added from 10 additional

research project sites. Sites utilized in the previous studies varied in experimental treatment and

seagrass presence/absence metrics. The sites ranged from dredge holes, potential dredge sites,

living shorelines, dual habitat sites of oysters and SAV, and long term SAV monitoring (Table 1).

Soil samples were taken during the survey work at each site and, when additional laboratory

processing was needed, completed to supplement the parameters of interest for the database.

These samples were then analyzed and incorporated as data points in the new database. Field and

lab work methodology included: seagrass surveys in situ, pipette analysis to evaluate grain size,

and loss on ignition to determine organic content of soil samples. Some sites were under survey

due to proposed activity such as development or potential dredging, while other sites were under

experimental treatment and long term monitoring efforts. The sites were surveyed to determine if

the area was a suitable SAV habitat and if the development or disturbance should be promoted. If

dredging had been approved, the dredge sites were visited before and after dredging occurred to

see if natural recruitment of SAV took place.

The SAV surveying methods varied within each report depending on the type of site and

the intended site treatment. SAV in Barnegat Bay consist of both Zostera marina (eelgrass) and

9
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass). Long term monitoring, living shoreline preservation surveys,

and dual habitat monitoring consists of divers visiting the site areas and swimming along transect

lines to record if SAV was present or absent twice a year or every other year, depending on the

intended site treatment. Living shoreline monitoring was conducted prior to shoreline

development, as well as after to determine if natural recruitment of SAV took place. Dredge hole

sites and living shoreline sites utilized a m2 quadrat to calculate percent cover of SAV before and

after dredging/disturbance or development. Dredging and living shoreline monitoring efforts

were conducted with the goal to determine the presence, absence, soil composition, and potential

for presence/absence of SAV in these areas. Following the site observations and soil sample

collection, the soil samples underwent wet sieving and pipette analysis to separate the sediment

by grain size.

Table 1: Data sources used in creating the soils database (MERL = Marine Ecosystem

Research Laboratory, CRC = Coastal Research Center). *Sites with asterisks correlate to

sites where additional laboratory work was necessary to complete the parameters of

interest.

Site Method of Data

Site Name Abbreviation Activity Collection Data Source
Forty North - Long-term SAV
Barnegat Light 40N Monitoring Quadrat Analysis MERL
Long-term SAV
Barnegat Bay BBP Monitoring Quadrat Analysis MERL
Pre/Post Dredge
hole fill
Dredge Hole 86 DH86 monitoring Quadrat Analysis CRC
Bunting Island Long-term SAV
Dual Habitat Dual Habitat Monitoring Quadrat Analysis MERL

10
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Potential Transect Line

Shoreline Survey and
*Forked River FR Preservation Site Quadrat Analysis MERL
Potential
Shoreline Transect Line
*Lavalette LAVA Preservation Site Survey MERL
Potential
*Lighthouse Shoreline Transect Line
Center LHC Preservation Site Survey MERL

*Sunflower Potential Dredge Transect Line

Island SI Site Survey MERL
Potential Transect Line
Shoreline Survey and
*Seaside Park SS Preservation Site Quadrat Analysis MERL

The objective of wet sieving and pipette analysis was to determine the total concentration

of sand, silt and clay particles that make up the soil sample (Appendix A). Wet sieving is

conducted if samples are already wet to separate the sand from the silt and clay particles. Grain

size analysis followed standard operating procedure for grain size analysis (Folk, 1974). By

adding a dispersant and deionized water to the soil sample, the soil can then be agitated through a

sieve to separate the sand from the rest of the sample. The smaller sediment particles that have

passed through the sieve can then be separated using a pipette analysis method. The pipette

analysis provides the silt/clay percentage as well as the clay percentage of the soil samples. The

pipette analysis method for determining the silt and clay percentages of a soil sample relied on

the suspension times of particles and the rate of settlement for each particle grain size. Heavier

particles, silt, would settle faster than smaller particles, clay, and would be reflected in the

samples taken at measured depths based on time passed and the temperature of the solution.

Following the sieve analysis, the loss on ignition (LOI) needed to be determined

(Appendix B). To determine the LOI, soil samples were dried in an oven for at least 24 hours

before being weighed and then placed in the furnace for 8 hours at 200ºC. After 8 hours in the

11
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

furnace, the samples were then placed back in the oven to dry out for at least 24 hours before

being reweighed to obtain the post-furnace weight. The difference in dry weight to post-furnace

weight provides the total loss of ignitions for each soil sample. The difference in weight

represents the total amount of organic matter present in the sample that was burnt off in the

furnace. These values were then added to the database.

To create the database, relevant information was selected from the previously conducted

studies as well as the data from the processed site soil samples. Data from site soil samples

included average dry weight and average post furnace weight to obtain the total organic content

of the samples (Appendix C). The total organic content was calculated in both mass, grams, and

total percent of sample. The soil composition of sand, silt and clay of samples was included from

both the previously conducted studies and from samples that were processed as part of ongoing

studies. Presence and absence of SAV was noted in the database for each data point, as well as

SAV species type. Data points that were intended to be included but were lacking in some fields

were omitted. Causes for omission include different reported units of sample site locations and

soil sample TOC reported as crosswalks in units of mL/kg and accounted for 14 unusable entries.

To determine if there was any correlation between TOC or sediment grain size to SAV

presence/absence, a logistic regression was completed and to visualize clusters of sites based on

shared characteristics, a Pearson distance, McQuitty linkage-based dendrogram was created. The

cluster analysis is a statistical classification technique that clusters or groups data points of

similar characteristics together. Points that are closer together are more similar than points

further apart. The greater the distance between points, the less similar those points are. The

dendrogram is a useful display of the collected data from different sources as it shows how each

sample is similar to samples from the same site and other sites. Pearson distance between pairs

12
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

of measures was used, which made the variances the same for standardizing the data. McQuitty

linkages were used as the distance is not dependent on one individual observation but rather a

combination of clusters. Logistic regressions were utilized to understand if a correlation existed

between the continuous variables (TOC, sand, silt, clay) and a categorical variable (SAV

presence or absence). If a relationship does exist between the variables, the graph displays a line

of best fit that falls among a majority of the data points. Graphs with a high degree of correlation

between the variables can serve as a predictive tool for other studies questioning the correlation

of these same variables. This method of variable correlation analysis is effective for this study as

it compares a categorical variable, the presence or absence of SAV and a continuous variable,

the percent of TOC, sand, silt or clay present in the soil sample.

IV. Results

A binary fitted line plot was first created for each of the variables to display the

relationship between our continuous predictors (grain size and total organic content) and the

binary response (submerged aquatic vegetation presence or absence). Total organic content was

the only soil property determined not to have a significant relationship to the probability of

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) presence or absence (Figure 1; p = 0.472). The binary

fitted line plots for sand, silt, and clay content all indicated significant relationships to SAV

presence or absence (p = 0.000). As the percentage of sand within the soil sample increased, the

likelihood of SAV presence also increased (Figure 2). With 79% sand in soil samples, there was a

50% likelihood of seagrass presence. The total percentage for both silt and clay were

significantly lower when determining the probability of SAV presence at 50% likelihood. At

13% silt content in soil samples, there was a 50% likelihood for SAV presence (Figure 3). As silt

13
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

composition within the soil increased, it was less likely that SAV was present at the site. At 9%

clay content in soil samples, there was a 50% likelihood of seagrass presence (Figure 4). The

binary logistic regression indicated there was a significant relationship between the three soil

size fractions and SAV presence or absence (p-value = 0.001).

14
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Figure 1: Binary fitted line plot of the relationship between TOC Figure 2: Binary fitted line plot of the relationship between percent
percent of soil sediment samples and SAV presence/absence. sand of soil sediment samples and SAV presence/absence.

15
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Figure 3: Binary fitted line plot of the relationship between percent silt Figure 4: Binary fitted line plot of the relationship between percent clay
of soil sediment samples and SAV presence/absence. of soil sediment samples and SAV presence/absence.

16
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

The dendrogram (Figure 5) clustered sites based on greater similarity to the four

parameters of interest (Appendix C). The further the distance between data points or groups of

clusters, the less similar those data points or clusters were.

Figure 5: The cluster analysis displays the similarity between each data point (sample
survey site) based on SAV presence/absence, species type presence, TOC, and
sediment grain size composition.

To better visualize the clusters, Table 2 displays the range and of each variable as well as

SAV presence/absence, and the number of individual sites grouped within each cluster. For

cluster 1, it can be inferred that these data points were grouped together because of the similar

high range values for clay and silt and lower range values for sand. For the eleven sites grouped

in cluster 1, there was a total of 85% SAV absence among the sites. Cluster 2 was the largest of

17
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

the clusters with 61 sites grouped based on similarity and had the highest range of sand content.

Cluster 2 also had a high percentage of samples with SAV present (64%).

Cluster 3 and 4 were 57.5% similar to each other, likely due to high ranges in TOC

content. Cluster 3 has only one site included in the grouping while cluster 4 has eleven; however,

the single site included in cluster 3 has the highest TOC level of all 122 sites included in the

database, and cluster 4 has the second highest TOC. These clusters varied greatly in SAV

presence and absence. Cluster 3 had a 100% absence of SAV for the one site included in the

cluster while cluster 4 had 27% absence, the lowest out of all the cluster groupings. Cluster 5

was the second largest grouping with 38 similar sites. Cluster 5 had the highest range in clay

content compared to the other clusters and 100% absence of SAV among the 38 sites.

Table 2: Cluster groups from dendrogram with corresponding ranges in sediment grain

size, TOC levels, percent SAV presence, and the number of sites in each cluster

Clay Range Silt Range Sand Range TOC Range SAV Presence/Absence # sites
Cluster
1 5.75 to 29.16 33.66 to 65.24 7.43 to 54.62 .044 to .100 85% absent 11
Cluster
2 .017 to 14.1 0.00 to 25.51 60.40 to 99.48 .002 to .060 36% absent 61
Cluster
3 28.16 46.05 25.79 0.23 100% absent 1
Cluster
4 0.9 to 21.36 .69 to 31.59 47.05 to 96.04 .079 to .200 27% absent 11
Cluster
5 56.3 to 93.9 36.0 to 69.70 0.6 to 61.00 .004 to .039 100% absent 38

V. Discussion:

Seagrasses provide important environmental services including erosion mitigation,

carbon sequestration, and act as nursery habitat and foraging ground for commercially and

18
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

recreationally important species (Adams et al., 2016). Seagrasses thrive under environmental

factors that include light availability, temperature, salinity, and soil properties like total organic

content (TOC) and soil grain size (fractions of sand, silt, clay). This study aimed to determine the

threshold values of the key determinants of SAV presence. The original model found that both

sediment grain size and TOC were important factors of SAV presence compared to other factors

such as water quality. After further refinement from the analytical data calculated from the

database, it was found that TOC levels in the soil had no statistical significance correlating to

SAV presence/absence. It was found that clay was the most important factor among sediment

grain size options included in the database. With only 9% clay content in the soil, a 50% chance

of SAV presence existed. Since SAV can only exist in areas where clay content is low, clay was

the most important determinant of SAV presence as it acts as a strong deterrent for SAV growth

and development. Since seagrasses are submerged in water, oxygen must be dissolved in the

water before it can interact with the plant. After dissolving in the water, oxygen is absorbed

beneath the soil surface through the roots and ribosomes of SAV, rather than the above ground

vegetation like the leaves of terrestrial plants. Sandy soil provides more space between sediment

grains for oxygen to infiltrate, allowing seagrass roots to absorb the oxygen between the sandy

particles. Seagrasses grown in soils composed of mostly large grained sediments have more

available oxygen compared to SAV grown in soils composed of mostly clay. Oxygen cannot

infiltrate between the tightly packed, small grain particles of silt and clay, preventing seagrass

roots from accessing oxygen needed to sustain aerobic metabolism (Borum et al., 2007). By

identifying threshold levels of sediment grain size that result in a 50% probability of SAV

presence, an “ideal” soil sediment content standard is established. This model identifies the ideal

soil sediment content levels for a 50% probability of SAV presence to be 79% sand, 13% silt,

19
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

and 9% clay. If soil samples do not match these values, specifically if clay levels are higher than

9%, these areas will likely not support SAV development due to the lack of oxygen below the

soil surface.

Our study found similar results to other studies where SAV presence was not strongly

correlated to TOC levels within the soil but rather the sand/silt/clay content of the soil.

Submerged aquatic vegetation will grow where there is a higher percentage of large grain

sediment particles rather than small particles like clay or silt. With increased levels of clay

content in soil, a negative correlation exists with SAV presence, decreasing the likelihood of

SAV presence. Other studies found similar results that do not support TOC having any

correlative relationship with SAV presence/biomass ​(Hillmann et al., 2020). However, the

presence of fine grained sediments in seagrass beds should not be applied generally as an

indicator of soil carbon percentage as large variability exists among sites despite the abundant

presence of muds (Serrano et al., 2016). Other studies found that samples with widely ranging

organic carbon content did not show to be correlated with grain-size distribution as sites with

vegetation had both fine and coarse grain sediment present (Overbeek et al., 2019).

The database created for this study included large quantities of both bare and vegetated

sites to understand soil composition among both types of sites. Results obtained from the

statistical analysis of both vegetated and bare sites showed to have no relationship with TOC

levels and did not vary based on SAV presence or absence. The results gained from this study

and database utilized information from soil and SAV survey reports taken within Barnegat Bay,

New Jersey. However, the determined ideal soil sediment content could be applicable to other

locations. If other areas were to create a database similar to the one in this study, it is possible

20
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

that a similar ideal soil sediment content could be determined for other locations. The results of

this study could be widespread for shallow estuary ecosystems.

Site Specific Relationships

Sediment grain size content and TOC levels included in the database were expected to

vary depending on site location and the activities performed at each site. Sites that were dredged

will show different sediment grain size content and TOC levels due to the site's history and

current condition. From a post dredged site surveyed by Dr. Lacey, only 10 to 24% SAV

coverage was reported. The dredge hole’s grain size analysis showed 80% sand, 16% silt, and

3% clay; however, despite the high percentage of sand content, the majority of the dredge site

and surrounding area was bare likely due to the increase in erosion activity caused by the

dredging. At the proposed dredging of Sunflower Island, none of the 16 250’ transect lines had

SAV present. The location's grain size analysis indicated a high proportion of finer material with

26% silt and 15% clay. The soil contained too high of fine grain particle content to support SAV

growth.

The living shoreline surveyed at Forked River had SAV present at 35% of quadrats

stations sampled. The shoreline had high variability in sand content with the average being 75%

however, some core samples drove the average down due to extremely low sand contents of less

than 50%. The average clay content was 8%. Due to the varying sand content, SAV was likely

unable to grow in this habitat. Contrasting the Forked River location, the Seaside Park shoreline

preservation study had a high percentage of SAV presence with both Zostera marina and Ruppia

maritima observed in the surveys. Of the 20 transect lines, 19 contained SAV. The Seaside Park

location had an average of 98% sand content with 1% or less of clay and silt. Due to the high

21
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

sand content of the soil, the site was very conducive for SAV growth. Along with the Seaside

Park shoreline, the proposed shoreline stabilization project for the Lighthouse Center for Natural

Resource Education in Waretown also found both Zostera marina and Ruppia maritima present

at a majority of the transect lines. The Lighthouse Center location found both seagrass species at

8 of the 10 surveyed transect lines. Transect lines with SAV present had a sand content greater

than 40% while sites not supporting SAV growth had sand content below 35%. Using these SAV

survey reports conducted by Dr. Lacey to establish the new database, it can be supported that

areas with greater sand content, like the preserved shorelines and proposed shoreline stabilization

areas, had higher levels of SAV presence. Areas with higher sand content within the soil are

better fitted for SAV habitat and should be advocated for preservation while sites that cannot

support SAV growth due to high clay content, do not hold as high a value for preservation

purposes. Areas high in sand content that either already or could support SAV growth near

shorelines can help to reduce wave action during store events and prevent erosion. Seafloor with

SAV coverage helps to reduce the velocity of waves and lessen the water's impact against the

shoreline. There are both ecological and economic advantages to preserving areas that are able to

support SAV growth as SAV presence can reduce the need for remedial action to rebuild

shorelines after a storm event. Seagrasses are a natural solution to coastal erosion and help to

save coastal communities resources and money from having to re stabilize shorelines.

Further Implications

Technical studies conducted by the Stockton Coastal Research Center that were not

intended to be included in SAV studies did not collect the same information during site surveys

that Dr. Lacey included in her reports and therefore were not as beneficial to the database. In

22
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

some reports, organic content was reported as mg/kg, while others reported carbon in total

percent of soil content. In order to be consistent in creating the database, only those technical

reports were included organic content as TOC were included. In addition, previous technical

studies separated grain size analysis into sand and silt/clay rather than three separate fractions,

which we now know that clay plays a large role in determining SAV presence. A

recommendation for future surveys is to include grain size analysis at the sand, silt, clay level

rather than reporting sand and silt/clay. In addition, reporting total organic carbon content as

percent rather than mg/kg. Despite the absence of standardized reporting among the studies and

surveys, statistical significance was still identified from the limited information in the reports.

If studies and reports could standardize the way they record their results and findings, a

larger, more inclusive database could be curated incorporating the findings from each of those

studies. With more data points entered into the database, the threshold values will become more

accurate and consistent without being significantly altered by outliers or random results. With a

larger, more readily available database to scientists and environmental professionals, SAV

restoration projects could have greater success rates due to more accurate threshold values from a

larger collection of sources. Monitoring projects and potential dredge sites could potentially use

the database to determine if areas are suitable for SAV habitat by comparing their soil samples to

the database as a reference. These values can be utilized for habitat or shoreline restoration

efforts as a predictive tool to determine if the sites could support SAV growth. Using these

values, soil samples could be collected for the proposed sites for SAV planting and it could be

determined through a sediment grain size analysis if the location could be a successful habitat for

SAV given the environmental factors present and soil composition. The threshold values of

sand/silt/clay content determined in this study can be used as a baseline to compare the soil

23
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

samples of other sites to. If the proposed sites do not match the determined threshold values for

50% likelihood of SAV growth, SAV restoration methods for that site should not be pursued as

they would likely not be successful.

In order to achieve a larger, more inclusive database, it could be requested from

governing environmental agencies or groups that any soil surveys conducted at a minimum

collect a soil sample and report if rooted SAV is present or absent at the site of inspection. If

these reports were changed to include the collection of soil samples in standardized units and to

note SAV presence or absence, a potential state or region wide database could be curated. An

inclusive database like the one proposed in this paper could provide both environmental

professionals and community members access to the reports and soil content in local regions to

guide local decision making.

24
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

References

Abdelrhman, M. A. (2003). Effect of eelgrass Zostera marina canopies on flow and transport.

Marine Ecology. Progress Series (Halstenbek), 248, 67–83.

https://doi.org/10.3354/meps248067

Adams, M. P., Hovey, R. K., Hipsey, M. R., Bruce, L. C., Ghisalberti, M., Lowe, R. J., Gruber,

R. K., Ruiz-Montoya, L., Maxwell, P. S., Callaghan, D. P., Kendrick, G. A., & O'Brien,

K. R. (2016). Feedback between sediment and light for seagrass: Where is it important?

Limnology and Oceanography, 61(6), 1937–1955. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10319

Adhitya, A., Folkard, A. ., Govers, L. L., van Katwijk, M. M., de Iongh, H. H., Herman,

P. M. J., & Bouma, T. . (2016). The exchange of dissolved nutrients between the water

column and substrate pore-water due to hydrodynamic adjustment at seagrass meadow

edges: A flume study. Limnology and Oceanography, 61(6), 2286–2295.

https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10376

Agawin, N. S. R., & Duarte, C. M. (2002). Evidence of Direct Particle Trapping by a Tropical

Seagrass Meadow. Estuaries, 25(6), 1205–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692217

​Borum J., Sand-Jensen K., Binzer T., Pedersen O., Greve T.M. (2007) Oxygen Movement in

Seagrasses. Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology And Conservation. Springer, Dordrecht.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2983-7_10

Bouma, T. ., van Duren, L. ., Temmerman, S., Claverie, T., Blanco-Garcia, A., Ysebaert, T., &

Herman, P. M. . (2007). Spatial flow and sedimentation patterns within patches of

25
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

epibenthic structures: Combining field, flume and modeling experiments. Continental

Shelf Research, 27(8), 1020–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2005.12.019

Chen, S.-N., Sanford, L. P., Koch, E. W., Shi, F., & North, E. W. (2007). A Nearshore Model to

Investigate the Effects of Seagrass Bed Geometry on Wave Attenuation and Suspended

Sediment Transport. Estuaries and Coasts, 30(2), 296–310.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02700172

de Boer, W. F. (2007). Seagrass–sediment interactions, positive feedbacks and critical thresholds

For Occurrence: A review. Hydrobiologia, 591(1), 5–24.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0780-9

De Falco, G., Ferrari, S., Cancemi, G., & Baroli, M. (2000). Relationship between sediment

distribution and Posidonia oceanica seagrass. Geo-Marine Letters, 20(1), 50–57.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s003670000030

Evans, A. S., Webb, K. L., & Penhale, P. A. (1986). Photosynthetic temperature acclimation in

two coexisting seagrasses, Zostera marina L. and Ruppia maritima L. Aquatic Botany,

24(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(86)90095-1

Folk, R. L. (1974). Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin, TX.,

182 pp.

Hansen, J. C. R., & Reidenbach, M. A. (2013). Seasonal Growth and Senescence of a Zostera

marina Seagrass Meadow Alters Wave-Dominated Flow and Sediment Suspension

Within a Coastal Bay. Estuaries and Coasts, 36(6), 1099–1114.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9620-5

26
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Hestir, E. L., Schoellhamer, D. H., Greenberg, J., Morgan-King, T., & Ustin, S. L. (2016). The

Effect of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Expansion on a Declining Turbidity Trend in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Estuaries and Coasts, 39(4), 1100–1112.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-015-0055-z

Hillmann, E. R., Rivera-Monroy, V. H., Nyman, J. A., & La Peyre, M. K. (2020). Estuarine
submerged aquatic vegetation habitat provides organic carbon storage across a shifting
landscape. The Science of the Total Environment, 717, 137217–137217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137217

Howard, J. L. (2021). Decomposition Rates of Surficial and Buried Organic Matter and the

Lability of Soil Carbon Stocks Across a Large Tropical Seagrass Landscape. Estuaries

and Coasts., 44(3), 846–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00817-x

Kalra, T. S., Ganju, N. K., & Testa, J. M. (2020). Development of a submerged aquatic

vegetation growth model in the Coupled Ocean–atmosphere–wave–sediment

Transport (coawst V3.4) model. Geoscientific Model Development, 13(11), 5211–5228.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5211-2020

Kemp, W. M., Batleson, R., Bergstrom, P., Carter, V., Gallegos, C. L., Hunley, W., ... & Wilcox,

D. J. (2004). Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay:

Water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries, 27(3), 363-377.

https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02803529

Koch, E. W. (2001). Beyond light: Physical, geological, and geochemical parameters as possible

submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements. Estuaries, 24(1), 1.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1352808

27
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Madsen, J. D., Chambers, P. A., James, W. F., Koch, E. W., & Westlake, D. F. (2001). The

interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes.

Hydrobiologia, 444(1/3), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017520800568

Marbà, N., Arias‐Ortiz, A., Masqué, P., Kendrick, G. A., Mazarrasa, I., Bastyan, G. R.,

Garcia‐Orellana, J., Duarte, C. M., & Lee, J. (2015). Impact of seagrass loss and

subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks. The Journal of Ecology,

103(2), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12370

Nakayama, K., Shintani, T., Komai, K., Nakagawa, Y., Tsai, J., Sasaki, D., Tada, K., Moki, H.,

Kuwae, T., Watanabe, K., & Hipsey, M. (2020). Integration of submerged aquatic

vegetation motion within hydrodynamic models. Water Resources Research, 56(8).

https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr027369

Overbeek, C. C., Harpenslager, S. F., van Zuidam, J. P., van Loon, E. E., Lamers, L. P., Soons,

M. B., Admiraal, W., Verhoeven, J. T., Smolders, A. J., Roelofs, J. G., & van der

Geest, H. G. (2019). Drivers of vegetation development, biomass production and the

initiation of peat formation in a newly constructed wetland. Ecosystems, 23(5),

1019–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00454-x

Staver, L. W., & Staver, K. W. (1993). Water quality associated with survival of submersed

aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries, 16(2), 346-361.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1352507

Serrano, O., Lavery, P. S., Duarte, C. M., Kendrick, G. A., Calafat, A., York, P. H., Steven, A., &

Macreadie, P. I. (2016). Can mud (silt and clay) concentration be used to predict soil

28
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

organic carbon content within seagrass ecosystems? Biogeosciences, 13(17), 4915–4926.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4915-2016

van der Heide, T., van Nes, E. ., Geerling, G. ., Smolders, A. J. ., Bouma, T. ., & van Katwijk, M.

(2007). Positive Feedbacks in Seagrass Ecosystems: Implications for Success in

Conservation and Restoration. Ecosystems (New York), 10(8), 1311–1322.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9099-7

Waycott, M., Collier, C., Mcmahon, K., Ralph, P., McKenzie, L., Udy, J., Grech, A.(2007).

Vulnerability of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef to climate change. ECU

Publications.

Widdows J, Pope ND, Brinsley MD, Asmus H, Asmus RM (2008). Effects of seagrass beds

(Zostera noltii and Z. marina) on near-bed hydrodynamics and sediment resuspension.

Mar Ecol Prog Ser 358:125-136. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07338

Work, P. A. (2021). Trapping of Suspended Sediment by Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in a

Tidal Freshwater Region: Field Observations and Long-Term Trends. Estuaries and

Coasts., 44(3), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00799-w

29
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Appendix A: Standard Operating Procedure- Methodology for Sediment Grain Size

Analysis (Folk, 1974):

A dispersant (10mL) and DI water will be added to the sample, followed by agitating the

sample. Using a sieve of 63 microns into a pan, DI water, and your hand to gently move the

sediment around, the sand particles will remain in the sieve and the smaller sediment particles

will fall through the sieve into the collection pan. Less than 1000 mL of DI water should be used

to complete the process. The collected sediment and DI water mixture will be used to complete

the pipette analysis to determine silt and clay content. To conduct the pipette analysis, the

sediment will be poured into a 1 liter sedimentation cylinder with deionized water added to the

same cylinder under the total content inside the container equals 1000 mL. The temperature of

the liquid mixture inside the cylinder is recorded to determine the amount of time needed to wait

before collecting the sedimentation samples. The cylinder should then be plugged with a stopper

and shaken for 1 minute. As soon as the minute has passed, the cylinder will be placed back on

the table and the stopper will be removed. A stopwatch should be started immediately when the

cylinder is placed on the table. A pipette will then be used to collect the initial sample of 10 mL,

10 cm down from the liquid's surface within 8 seconds of the stopwatch starting. The sample will

be placed in a weighing dish. Another 10 mL sample will be taken from 10 cm after the initial

sample has been taken and placed in a separate weighing dish. The cylinder should then be

covered with the stopper and allow the designated time to pass before collecting two additional

10 mL samples from 5 cm down. The four weighing dishes should then be placed in an oven to

dry. This process will provide the silt/clay percentage as well as the clay percentage of the

sediment samples.

30
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Appendix B: Standard Operating Procedure- Methodology for Determining LOI:

To determine the loss on ignition, LOI, the soil samples must first be dried in an oven.

After drying in the oven at 70ºF for at least 24 hours, the samples will then be removed from the

oven and weighed. Each sample will be weighed three times to establish that the dry weight of

the sample is accurate as some soil sample weights will fluctuate as the soils take on moisture

from the air. The weighted soil samples will then be placed in the furnace for 8 hours at 400ºF.

After 8 hours in the furnace, the samples must cool to a temperature safe enough to handle. Due

to the time left to cool to a safe temperature, the samples will have taken up moisture from the air

and will be placed back in the oven to dry out again for at least 24 hours. After drying in the

oven for a second time, the sample can then be reweighted, 3 separate times, to obtain the

post-furnace weight. The averages of both the 3 dry weights and the 3 post furnace weights

should then be calculated. The difference in dry weight to post-furnace weight will provide the

total loss of ignitions for each sediment sample. The difference in weight represents the total

amount of organic matter present in the sample that was burnt off in the furnace.

31
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Appendix C: Database

TOC %
of total
Site ID - LOI % sand %silt % clay presence species cluster
FR18 0.083 54.62 39.63 5.75 1 3 1
LHC9 0.084 38.08 45.30 16.63 0 4 1
FR13 0.089 18.21 63.09 18.70 0 4 1
FR6 0.060 47.63 33.66 18.71 0 4 1
LHC7 0.054 44.44 34.36 21.20 1 3 1
FR1 0.085 39.63 37.66 22.71 0 4 1
SI5 0.054 33.01 42.27 24.72 0 4 1
SI2 0.044 32.84 42.26 24.90 0 4 1
LHC10 0.083 31.08 43.63 25.29 0 4 1
FR20 0.100 7.43 65.24 27.33 0 4 1
SI1 0.062 15.40 55.44 29.16 0 4 1
BBP08 0.005 89.93 8.33 0.17 1 1 2
BBP12 0.024 99.42 0.53 0.20 1 2
LAVA4 0.002 99.29 0.50 0.21 0 4 2
SS11 0.004 98.96 0.74 0.30 1 2 2
BBP13 0.024 99.23 0.73 0.30 1 2 2
SS12 0.002 99.30 0.25 0.45 0 4 2
SS8 0.003 98.99 0.53 0.48 0 4 2
SS4 0.004 99.01 0.51 0.48 1 2 2
SS16 0.003 98.97 0.54 0.49 1 2 2
SS17 0.005 98.96 0.55 0.49 1 2 2
SS2 0.003 99.48 0.00 0.52 1 2 2
LAVA1 0.003 98.83 0.63 0.54 0 4 2
SS15 0.003 99.03 0.35 0.62 1 2 2
SS1 0.003 97.51 1.81 0.68 1 2 2
SS10 0.002 99.30 0.00 0.70 0 4 2
SS19 0.004 99.29 0.00 0.71 1 2 2
LAVA5 0.010 99.29 0.00 0.71 0 4 2
SS13 0.002 98.77 0.51 0.72 1 2 2
LAVA3 0.003 99.03 0.25 0.72 0 4 2
SS3 0.004 99.25 0.00 0.75 1 2 2
SS5 0.004 99.24 0.00 0.76 1 2 2
FR7 0.009 93.44 5.79 0.76 1 3 2
SS18 0.003 98.42 0.81 0.76 0 4 2
SS6 0.004 99.19 0.00 0.81 1 2 2

32
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

SS14 0.003 98.69 0.47 0.85 0 4 2

SS9 0.010 96.61 2.49 0.90 1 2 2
BBP06 0.024 97.38 1.71 0.91 1 1 2
BBP15 0.024 91.98 7.08 0.94 1 2 2
BBP01 0.005 95.12 3.89 0.98 1 1 2
BBP14 0.024 96.56 2.68 0.99 1 2 2
SS20 0.004 98.98 0.00 1.02 1 2 2
FR8 0.013 90.84 8.11 1.05 1 3 2
FR16 0.007 97.00 1.93 1.07 1 3 2
Barrel 0.050 94.59 4.30 1.11 1 1 2
LHC6 0.005 98.13 0.74 1.14 1 3 2
LHC1 0.003 98.46 0.37 1.18 0 4 2
BBP03 0.005 94.33 4.49 1.18 1 1 2
FR2 0.004 97.72 1.03 1.25 1 3 2
FR4 0.005 97.20 1.54 1.26 1 3 2
FR11 0.011 95.92 2.82 1.26 1 3 2
LAVA2 0.002 98.20 0.47 1.33 0 4 2
FR9 0.011 96.09 2.55 1.36 1 3 2
FR19 0.004 97.00 1.51 1.49 1 3 2
FR5 0.005 97.72 0.77 1.51 1 3 2
FR12 0.014 93.94 4.26 1.79 1 3 2
FR3 0.008 94.96 2.93 2.10 1 3 2

DH-3 pan 0.060 87.57 10.18 2.25 0 4 2

LHC2 0.011 93.43 4.10 2.47 0 4 2
FR10 0.011 93.28 3.89 2.83 1 3 2
LHC3 0.039 88.41 5.60 5.99 1 3 2
LAVA6 0.030 83.95 9.78 6.28 0 4 2
SI10 0.014 81.23 11.24 7.54 0 4 2
SS7 0.003 89.75 2.69 7.55 0 4 2
FR14 0.053 82.52 9.83 7.65 1 3 2
SI9 0.019 78.22 12.86 8.92 0 4 2
LHC5 0.055 76.14 14.21 9.65 1 3 2
SI3 0.020 75.21 14.92 9.86 0 4 2
SI8 0.019 70.96 17.99 11.05 0 4 2
SI6 0.023 73.55 15.28 11.17 0 4 2
SI7 0.026 68.79 19.80 11.41 0 4 2
SI4 0.027 60.40 25.51 14.10 0 4 2
FR15 0.230 25.79 46.05 28.16 0 4 3
BBP10 0.200 96.04 3.06 0.90 1 3 4
FR17 0.079 78.53 16.54 4.93 1 3 4

33
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

40NAvera
ge G pan 0.114 82.30 11.31 6.39 1 1 4

DH-4 pan 0.081 72.96 19.92 7.12 0 4 4

DH-1 pan 0.082 70.97 20.75 8.28 0 4 4

DH-2 pan 0.089 61.50 27.05 11.46 0 4 4

LHC4 0.180 69.61 18.27 12.12 1 3 4
40NAvera
ge B pan 0.113 80.17 7.60 12.23 1 1 4

DH-B pan 0.176 85.29 0.69 14.02 1 1 4

40NAvera
ge S pan 0.115 62.79 17.52 19.70 1 1 4
LHC8 0.147 47.05 31.59 21.36 1 3 4
East - 50 0.021 1.10 37.90 56.30 0 4 5
Northeast
- 20 0.024 1.40 36.00 57.10 0 4 5
East - 25 0.025 4.90 41.90 57.10 0 4 5
North
Outer 0.014 19.20 40.20 57.60 0 4 5
Northeast
- 35 (2) 0.024 1.80 42.00 58.10 0 4 5

North - 30 0.023 2.40 41.10 58.20 0 4 5

Northeast
- 40 (2) 0.015 2.20 42.30 58.50 0 4 5
East - 15 0.024 4.50 39.20 58.90 0 4 5
West -30 0.018 3.10 40.00 59.20 0 4 5
Northeast
- 35 (1) 0.025 2.90 47.20 60.60 0 4 5
East - 55 0.029 1.90 44.00 61.00 0 4 5
Northeast
- 40 (1) 0.021 2.10 48.10 61.00 0 4 5

West - 20 0.025 2.50 44.40 61.10 0 4 5

Northeast
- 15 0.022 3.20 48.00 62.70 0 4 5
Northeast
- 50 0.013 1.50 47.80 62.80 0 4 5

West - 40 0.021 2.20 47.80 62.80 0 4 5

South - 45 0.023 0.60 47.90 62.90 0 4 5

34
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Northeast
- 25 0.023 1.40 49.30 63.00 0 4 5
Northeast
- 45 0.017 2.50 46.10 63.00 0 4 5

West - 35 0.020 1.60 48.00 63.10 0 4 5

West -50 0.028 2.40 48.20 63.10 0 4 5

West - 55 0.029 1.40 41.00 63.20 0 4 5

Southwest
- 55 0.029 1.60 48.20 63.20 0 4 5
North
Inner 0.014 26.40 47.00 63.20 0 4 5

East Inner 0.012 19.30 50.50 64.00 0 4 5

West
Outer 0.018 35.00 51.30 64.30 0 4 5
Northeast
- 30 0.018 1.50 47.20 64.60 0 4 5

West - 15 0.030 6.90 51.10 64.90 0 4 5

West - 45 0.021 1.60 50.90 65.00 0 4 5

West - 25 0.025 2.70 49.40 65.30 0 4 5

East Outer 0.011 31.50 55.00 66.00 0 4 5

West -10 0.039 5.80 51.80 67.30 0 4 5
Northeast
- 10 0.004 40.00 54.00 68.20 0 4 5
Northeast
Inner 0.016 49.00 57.80 68.50 0 4 5
South
Outer 0.013 60.50 64.10 71.60 0 4 5
South
Inner 0.018 50.60 69.70 73.80 0 4 5

North - 10 0.012 52.80 68.70 76.10 0 4 5

Northeast
Outer 0.012 61.00 66.60 93.90 0 4 5

35
 Soil Properties as Determinants of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Presence

Signature Page

Capstone Advisor:__________________________________

36