Correlation Between Spat Recruitment to Different Treatments

Vanessa Maciel, Mentee of William S. Rodney

INTRODUCTION:
A
Blue Crabs 06/03/22
6

This project has been developed with mentor, William S. Rodney, from the week 5

of January 15 to the week of April 15. The research mainly focuses on how 4

different treatments (open vs closed cages) affect spat recruitment in shells and 3 Open
Closed
ceramic tiles from the same deployed cage. The recruitment of spat was also 2

compared between two treatments varying in pressures from crab predation. 1

Through using the Wilcoxon Test, a non-parametric test, significant results 0

Treatment

appeared.
B
Blue Crabs 08/30/22 Figure 8. Graph from “Contrasting complexity of
3 adjacent habitats influences the strength of
2.5 cascading predatory effects”
2

1.5 Open
Closed

1
CONCLUSIONS:
0.5

• The shells were the better

0
Treatment

C oyster spat treatment overall

Spat Counts on Shells 06/03/2022
• Open vs closed treatment did
500 not affect shells but may have
450

400 affected ceramic tiles.

• Possible reasoning for open
350

300

Spat/Liter
Open

Figure 4. Unequal distribution of vs closed cages minimal

250
Closed
200

data given by JMP program 150

effect
100

50

0
• Stephen R. Carpenter et.
Treatment

al (2008) introduces time

D lags, says, “lags in
RESULTS:
35
Spat Counts
Spat Counts on
in Shells
Shells 08/30/22
08/30/22 ecosystem response occur
35

30
30
because generation times
• Significant results: 25
25
differ among trophic
1. Ceramic Tiles’ spat recruitment vs Shells’ spat recruitment data from June levels.”
20
20

Spat /Liter
Series1
Open
15
15

• Cage mesh size affected spat

CSeries2
losed

3, 2022 [α-value: < 0.001], and August 30, 2022 [α-value: 0.0002] (G & H 10
10

Figure 1. Old map of coral reef location used to identify data in Figure 7) 55
recruitment.
• Shell container bait box
00
Treatment
2. June 3, 2022 Ceramic Tiles (Open vs Closed) spat recruitment [α-value:
0.0304] (E in Figure 7) E
has smaller mesh size [avg
PROCEDURES: size: 4.4 cm3] (Figure 6)
*Factors affected significance of similar comparison of Ceramic Tiles (Open Spat Counts
Spat Counts on
on Tiles
Tiles 06/03/22
06/03/22

vs Closed) spat recruitment for August 30, 2022 [α-value: 0.5155] (F in 70

70 compared to the oyster
• Collect remaining shell spat count data from August 30, 2022 (Figure 3) Figure 7)
60
60
cage [avg size: 14 cm3]
50
50

• Input the shells and ceramic tiles data from June 3, 2022, and August 30, (Figure 5)
• Blue crab abundance was not statistically significant (A & B in Figure 7) even

Spat/Liter
40
40

2022, to Excel (including blue crab count)

Series1
Open
• Journal article of James E.
though different dates had different abundance. It could be significant if more 30
30 Series2
Closed

• Analyze data using JMP software

20
20 Byers et. al (1985) has
data is collected. 10
10
similar results:
• Look at data distribution to see possible test needed • Factors affecting results: • Change in oyster’s
00
Treatment

• Use test to evaluate significance (α-value set to 0.1) • 1 lost cage in samples from June 3, 2022 and 3 lost cages from August 30, F environment (on-reef vs
• Evaluate results and make conclusions 2022 Spat Counts on Tiles 08/30/22 mudflat) was significant
• Shell samples from June 3, 2022 contained 20 shells while August 30, 8.00

7.00
(Figure 8)
2022 samples contained 7 shells 6.00

TEST TYPE USED: NON-PARAMETRIC 5.00

Spat/Liter
4.00 Open

• Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Test (Figure 4)

Closed
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Treatment

Works Cited:
G

•Byers, James E., and Zachary C.

Tiles vs Shell 06/03/22
400

350

300
Holmes, and Jennafer C. Malek.
250 “Contrasting complexity of

Spat/Liter
adjacent habitats influences the
200 Tiles
Shells
150

100

50
strength of cascading predatory
0
Treatment
effects.” Ecologic Society of
America, 01 December 2008,
H
https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1057.1
25
Tiles vs Shell 08/30/22
•Carpenter, Stephen R., James F.
Kitchell, and James R. Hodgson.
Figure 2. Two ceramic tiles with spat, A from June 3, 2022, Figure 3. Oyster Shell Sample from August Figure 5. Oyster cage used where the shells and Figure 6. Shell container bait
20

and B from August 30, 2022. 30, 2022, dorsal and ventral sides ceramic tiles were collected from box 15
“Trophic Interactions and Lake

Spat/Liter
10
Tiles
Shells Productivity.” JSTOR, November
Acknowledgements: 5
1985,
Figure 7. Results from the Wilcoxon http://www.jstor.org/stable/130998
I thank my mentor, William S. Rodney, for guiding me through this mentorship, Mrs. Allen for giving me this opportunity and my father for taking me to my /Kruskal-Wallis Test (left) and 0

mentorship every Tuesday. 9.

Treatment

related histography (right)