datasonde monitoring in the loxahatchee river task 2: final … · 2018. 2. 21. · 3. ph –...

DATASONDE MONITORING IN THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER

TASK 2: FINAL REPORT

In Partial Fulfillment of PC P601858

For the Period

October 2005 through April 2006

Respectfully Submitted by

D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D. Director of Water Resources Loxahatchee River District

October 23, 2006

LRD Datasonde Interim Report p.2

Figure 1. Datasonde sampling locations within the Loxahatchee River and southern Indian River Lagoon. See the text for sampling station names.


Introduction

Since January 2004, the Loxahatchee River District has partnered with the South Florida

Water Management District to continuously monitor physical water quality parameters (i.e.,

temperature, salinity) within the Loxahatchee River Watershed. This monitoring program has

several specific goals, and they include the following: (1) establishing baseline conditions in the

Loxahatchee River and Estuary, (2) establishing the relationship between freshwater discharge

(i.e., over Lainhart Dam and/or S-46) and salinity dynamics in the estuary and the river, (3)

establish a better understanding of the daily salinity variability within the estuary and river, and

(4) provide observational data on a nearly continuous basis that can be used to calibrate and

validate salinity models. Results from the datasonde monitoring project already have been used

to understand why seagrasses were so severely impacted by the storms of September 2004 and

the resulting freshwater discharge (Ridler et al. 2006). Furthermore, as you will see below, these

data go a long way towards achieving each of the goals stated above.

While this report primarily covers the data collected from October 2005 through

September 2006, several of the graphics used to illustrate and define relationships between

freshwater discharge and salinity dynamics are based on data from the entire period of record

(April 2004 through September 2006). This report was designed to highlight some of the most

important and relevant observations and findings that resulted from the datasonde monitoring.

Goal 1 is addressed in the graphics in the appendix. Goals 2 and 3 are addressed in the body of

the report. Goal 4 is not addressed in this report, and most likely can only be addressed by

SFWMD staff in the Coastal Ecosystems Division.

Study Area

The Loxahatchee River Estuary encompasses approximately 400 ha and drains a

watershed of approximately 700 km2 located in northeastern Palm Beach County and

southeastern Martin County, Florida, USA. Freshwater discharges into the estuary from the

North Fork, the Northwest Fork, and the Southwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The

hydrology of the basin has been substantially altered by flood control efforts since the 1950s.

Historically (pre-1950), most surface water runoff reaching the estuary originated in the

Loxahatchee and Hungryland Sloughs and flowed gradually to the Northwest Fork. In the 1930s

the Lainhart Dam, a small fixed-weir dam, was constructed in the Northwest Fork at river mile


14.5 to reduce “over” drainage of upstream reaches of the Northwest Fork during the dry season.

In 1958 a major canal (C-18) and flood control structure (S-46) were constructed to divert flows

from the Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork, which increased the intensity and decreased the

duration of storm-related discharge to the estuary. Furthermore, since 1947 Jupiter inlet, the

eastern link to the ocean, has been kept permanently open through ongoing dredging projects,

which increased saltwater intrusion into the primarily freshwater Northwest Fork. Ongoing

restoration efforts seek to increase base flows into the Northwest Fork, while not compromising

the ecological integrity of downstream reaches (i.e., estuary) nor impairing valued ecosystem

components of the estuary such as oysters and seagrasses (SFWMD 2006).

During this study, datasondes were used to monitor physical water quality conditions at

seven sites (Figure 1). Water quality monitoring occurred at three seagrass stations. These

stations were North Bay (NB), Pennock Point (PP), and Station 25. North Bay (NB) and

Pennock Point (PP) were located in the central embayment of the Loxahatchee River (Figure 1),

while Station #25, which was only added in January 2006, was located 8 km north of Jupiter

Inlet in the southern Indian River Lagoon. At each of these sampling locations, datasondes were

used to monitor temperature, salinity, conductivity, and water depth.

Water quality monitoring also occurred at four locations in the Wild and Scenic segment

of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (Figure 1). These sites were Stations 69, 67, 66,

and Kitching Creek (KC). Station 69 was the most upstream location and was located where

Indiantown Road crosses the Loxahatchee River. Station 67 is at Trapper Nelson’s dock.

Station 66 is in the Loxahatchee River near the confluence of Hobe Grove ditch. The Kitching

Creek (KC) site was in the Loxahatchee River at the confluence of Kitching Creek (see Figure

1). Note that two datasondes were deployed at Kitching Creek – one at the surface (0.5 m deep)

and one in the middle of the channel approximately 20 cm off the bottom. At each of these

monitoring locations in the Wild and Scenic River the following parameters were monitored:

temperature, pH, DO, salinity, conductivity and water depth. It should be noted that stations 67

and 66 were added as a result of the extended drought observed during the monitoring period.

These “supplemental” stations were added to help understand the dynamical movement of the

salt wedge upstream into the Northwest Fork as a result of diminished freshwater discharge over

Lainhart Dam.


Materials and Methods

At each station, LRD technicians employed a multi-parameter datasonde (either a

HydroTech Data Sonde 3 or Data Sonde 4 or a YSI 600 OMS unit) to collect physical water

quality parameters. We have included a brief description of how we employ datasondes. First,

multi-parameter datasondes were used in both freshwater and marine waters. Datasondes were

used to monitor temperature, depth, pH, conductivity/salinity and dissolved oxygen in

freshwater, while only temperature, depth, and salinity were monitored in marine waters (e.g.,

NB). Typically, datasondes were placed within 25 cm of the bottom (see Kitching Creek surface

site exception above), and observations were recorded every 15 minutes – though a 60 minute

interval was used at Station 69.

Prior to datasonde deployment, an initial calibration was performed following the

protocol described in the operating manual. Once the initial calibration was accomplished, the

datasonde was programmed to begin collecting data at the appropriate start time and with a 15

minute interval between readings. Datasondes were deployed in an upright position, with the

probes facing down, to minimize fouling of the probes. On a weekly basis, LRD technicians

traveled to each of the datasonde sites and performed an in situ QC check by collecting an in situ

comparison reading using an appropriately calibrated datasonde. This permited a comparison

between results obtained from the field-deployed datasonde and the hand-held unit. Typically,

datasondes were deployed for one week in marine waters or for two weeks in brackish and

freshwaters. Upon collection, a final calibration was performed following the protocol described

in the operating manual. In order for data to meet LRD’s QA/QC acceptance criteria, weekly

QC checks and final calibration data must have met the following criteria:

1. Dissolved Oxygen – difference ≤ 0.5 mg/L

2. Specific Conductance – difference ≤ 10%

3. pH – difference ≤ 0.5 pH units

4. Temperature – difference ≤ 0.5 °C

Data meeting the above criteria were accepted as valid, while data not meeting these criteria

were rejected as unreliable and removed from the final (edited) dataset.


Results

Results from the datasonde monitoring project clearly show the daily and seasonal

variability of the various monitored parameters (e.g., salinity, dissolved oxygen) within and

among the monitored locations. For example, datasonde observations show substantial seasonal

variability in dissolved oxygen at Station 69, with much of the summer and early fall having

relatively low dissolved oxygen conditions (Figure 2). Similarly, Figure 3 shows the effects of

saltwater intrusion. During the prolonged dry period (Feb. – Jun. 2006) daily salinities

fluctuated between ~2 ppt to >16 ppt each day in the surface waters at the Kitching Creek

monitoring site.

Figure 2. Salinity fluctuations at Station 69 (Indiantown Road bridge). This graph clearly shows the lack of saltwater intrusion at Station 69. Dissolved oxygen monitoring shows seasonally depressed values, which suggest biota may be impaired from August through November.

Station 69 (Indiantown Road Bridge)POR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

1-O

ct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n (m

g/l) Mean

MinimumMaximum

Station 69 (Indiantown Road Bridge)POR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.01-

Oct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dai

ly S

alin

ity (p

pt)

MeanMinimumMaximum

Kitching Creek SurfacePOR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1-O

ct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dai

ly S

alin

ity (p

pt)

MeanMinimumMaximum

Kitching Creek BottomPOR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

1-O

ct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dai

ly S

alin

ity (p

pt)

MeanMinimumMaximum

Figure 3. Daily and seasonal salinity fluctuations in the Loxahatchee River at the confluence with Kitching Creek. Observations are for both the bottom (left) and surface (right) datasondes. Note the excessive difference between daily minimum and maximum salinity values as recorded by the surface probe.


Results from the datasonde project have already been used to understand why seagrasses

were so severely impacted by the storms of September 2004 and the resulting freshwater

discharge (Ridler et al. 2006). We believe the data resulting from the datasonde project are of

utmost importance when understanding when and where seagrasses are stressed (i.e., experience

physiologically stressful conditions). Figure 4 illustrates the salinity regime differences between

the three datasonde monitoring sites associated with seagrasses. Previous work by LRD has

clearly established that shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) is the dominant seagrass species in the

Loxahatchee River Estuary, and it is known that this species is tolerant of broadly fluctuating

salinity conditions. The datasonde data for North Bay and Pennock Point, presented in Figure 4,

clearly show large daily salinity fluctuations in the Loxahatchee River Estuary, and furthermore,

data from the datasonde at Station 25 (in the southern Indian River Lagoon) show the absence of

such large daily salinity fluctuations. While not conclusive, these data are helping form our

understanding of the conditions necessary for various seagrass species survival.

Furthermore, salinity data from the datasonde monitoring project have been used to

understand how freshwater discharged into the Loxahatchee River Estuary (e.g., over Lainhart

Dam and/or S-46) influence the daily salinity regime in the estuary and in particular at seagrass

Pennock PointPOR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1-O

ct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dai

ly S

alin

ity (p

pt)

MeanMinimumMaximum

North BayPOR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401-

Oct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dai

ly S

alin

ity (p

pt)

MeanMinimumMaximum

Station 25 (Hobe Sound)POR: October 1, 2005 - September 13, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1-O

ct

1-N

ov

1-D

ec

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-A

pr

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-A

ug

1-Se

p

Dai

ly S

alin

ity (p

pt)

MeanMinimumMaximum

Figure 4. Daily and seasonal salinity fluctuations at the seagrass sampling sites. Note the near overlap among minimum, mean, and maximum daily salinity at Station 25, and then note the disparity among these same measures at North Bay and Pennock Point. It appears that the large daily salinity fluctuations in the Loxahatchee River are likely responsible for the dominance of Halodule wrightii.


beds (Figure 5). It is both intuitive and immediately apparent that as freshwater flows (i.e.,

discharge into the system) increase, salinity values decrease. Nonetheless, datasonde data have

been used to clearly describe the effect of discharge on minimum daily salinity, mean daily

salinity, and maximum daily salinity values. Furthermore, this has been done for both the

seagrass sites (NB and PP) as well as Kitching Creek surface and bottom sites (Figure 6). These

curves document discharge–salinity relationships, and can be used to influence water

management decisions (i.e., the amount of freshwater discharge that results in altered salinities at

seagrass sites).

Data presented in Figure 7 clearly show that salinities in the southern Indian River

Lagoon are not affected by freshwater discharged over Lainhart Dam and/or S-46. Furthermore,

data in Figure 7 show the relatively stable nature of salinities at Station 25, which may help

explain the high quality seagrass beds located at this site.


North BayPOR: April 2004 - August 2006

y = 34.862e-0.0004x

R2 = 0.7725p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Cumulative Discharge (cfs)

Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity


y = 32.423e-0.0011x

R2 = 0.7598p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Min

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = -0.0034x + 35.975R2 = 0.5299p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Max

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 8.5329x0.4038

R2 = 0.9464p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Minimum Daily Salinity (ppt)

Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity

(ppt

)


y = 0.1201x0.5936

R2 = 0.8035p < 0.001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Stde

v of

Dai

ly S

alin

ity

Pennock PointPOR: May 2004 - August 2006

y = 34.906e-0.0007x

R2 = 0.6844p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity


y = -6.1148Ln(x) + 51.375R2 = 0.7994p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Min

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = -0.0064x + 36.158R2 = 0.6576p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Max

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 6.0875Ln(x) + 12.889R2 = 0.8657

p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity

(ppt

)


y = 0.3029x0.4612

R2 = 0.6858p < 0.001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


Stde

v of

Dai

ly S

alin

ity

Figure 5. Statistical relationships between cumulative discharge (Lainhart flow + S-46 flow) and various measures of salinity at NB and PP. All regressions are significant at p<0.001.


Kitching Creek SurfacePOR: October 2005 - August 2006

y = 92.372x-1.2001

R2 = 0.8187p < 0.001

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Lainhart Discharge (cfs)

Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity


y = 9.4704x-0.7819

R2 = 0.7149p < 0.001

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Min

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 662.47x-1.5243

R2 = 0.8449p < 0.001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Max

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 2.7641x - 0.037R2 = 0.8518p < 0.001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8 10


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity

(ppt

)


0

1

2

3

4

5

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Stde

v of

Dai

ly S

alin

ity

Kitching Creek BottomPOR: October 2005 - August 2006

y = 1668.6x-1.6951

R2 = 0.8175p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity


y = 737.48x-1.6078

R2 = 0.7285p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Min

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 1929.1x-1.6502

R2 = 0.8233p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Max

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 3.1839Ln(x) + 5.7228R2 = 0.9079

p < 0.001

0

24

6

810

1214

16

1820

22

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity

(ppt

)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Stde

v of

Dai

ly S

alin

ity

Figure 6. Statistical relationships between discharge over Lainhart Dam and various salinity measures at Kitching Creek. All regressions are significant at p<0.001.


Station 25 (Hobe Sound)POR: January 2006 - August 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


Min

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


Max

imum

Dai

ly S

alin

ity


y = 0.8743x + 4.8044R2 = 0.9249

p < 0.001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Mea

n D

aily

Sal

inity

(ppt

)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


Stde

v of

Dai

ly S

alin

ity

Figure 7. Statistical relationships between cumulative discharge (Lainhart flow + S-46 flow) and various salinity measures at Station 25. All regressions are significant at p<0.001.


Discussion

The goals of the datasonde monitoring project were to: (1) establish baseline conditions

in the Loxahatchee River and Estuary, (2) establish the relationship between freshwater

discharge and salinity dynamics in the estuary and the river, (3) establish a better understanding

of the daily salinity variability within the estuary and river, and (4) provide observational data on

a nearly continuous basis that can be used to calibrate and validate salinity models. Figures 2

through 6 as well as Appendix A clearly accomplish goal 1. That is, we are gaining a solid

understanding of the pre-CERP physical water quality conditions in the Loxahatchee River and

Estuary. Figures 5 and 6 clearly document the relationships between freshwater discharge and

salinity conditions in the Loxahatchee River and Estuary (goal 2). Furthermore, these figures

clearly document the statistical relationship between mean daily salinity (a parameter provided

by the current salinity model) and minimum daily salinity (the salinity parameter suggested to be

most important when trying to understand when seagrasses are stressed; Ridler et al. (2006)).

The accomplishment of goal three is illustrated most effectively in Figures 3 and 4. Finally, at

present LRD staff do not have the expertise to accomplish goal 4. However, we look forward to

working collaboratively with SFWMD staff to accomplish this important goal.

In conclusion, the datasonde project has resulted in the compilation of an amazing

amount of data that has a very direct relevance to ongoing research, monitoring, and restoration

in the Loxahatchee River and Estuary. However, our work is not done. More work needs to be

accomplished, and more specifically, more datasonde data needs to be collected. Specifically,

datasonde data needs to be collected in the vicinity of the existing oyster reefs in the

Loxahatchee River. We look forward to continuing this cost-effective collaboration.

Literature Cited

Ridler, M. S., R. C. Dent and D. A. Arrington. 2006. Effects of two hurricanes on Syringodium

filiforme, manatee grass, within the Loxahatchee River Estuary, Southeast Florida.

Estuaries and Coasts 29: In Press.


(1) COORDINATES OF THE MONITORING SITES Coordinates are provided in decimal degrees using the WGS84 Datum Coordinate System.

Station Latitude Longitude Period of Record 69 26.937309460 -80.176155231 10/1/05 – 9/13/06 KC 26.991137909 -80.155045620 10/1/05 – 9/13/06 25 27.013308183 -80.101452568 1/1/06 – 9/13/06 NB 26.950903312 -80.094306194 10/1/05 – 9/13/06 PP 26.948131888 -80.110831491 10/1/05 – 9/13/06 66 26.985330292 -80.161806702 3/21/06 – 7/10/06 67 26.976002794 -80.163348247 3/21/06 – 7/10/06

(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROBE CALIBRATION AND Q/A Q/C PROCEDURES See the interim report submitted by LRD. (3) FORMULAS FOR PARAMETER CONVERSION AND CALCULATION See the interim report submitted by LRD. (4) DISCUSSION OF DATA ACCURACY The accuracy of the data can be defined by the limits set in the QA/QC Acceptance Criteria found in the LRD Standard Operating Procedures (see item (2) above). Data that do not meet QA/QC Acceptance Criteria were deleted from the record and not reported in the data (spreadsheet) files. Nonetheless, we also have provided raw data files, which are the direct downloads of the datasondes and have not been edited for QC. (5) LIST OF DATA PROVIDED In addition to this written report, a CD-ROM has been provided that contains electronic files of the report and all data (original and converted) in MS Excel spreadsheets. The CD is structured with three main folders (Data, Location, and Report). The Data folder contains a folder (1 All Stations Composite Data) that contains all QA/QC data, and a separate folder for each sampling site (e.g., 25, 69, KC, NB, and PP) that contains all raw data for the site. Again, the “Raw Data” have not been edited for quality assurance or quality control. The data in the folder “1 All Stations Composite Data” represent our working data. These data do not contain any data that do not meet QA/QC acceptance criteria. The Datasonde QA/QC procedures and calibration are on the CD in the File Report:

LRD Standard Operating Procedures (printed in report) DEP Standard Operating Procedures (printed in report) Hydrolab Corporation Operating Manual Part 3 Maintenance and Calibration The Datasonde Formulas for Parameter Conversion and Calculation Hydrolab Corporation Operating Manual Part 5 Technical Notes YSI Incorporated 6-Series Environmental Monitoring Systems Manual (includes

formulas for parameter conversion and calculation)


APPENDIX: Composite graphics for each datasonde site showing the relevant period of record (10/1/05 – 9/13/06).

North Bay

1015

202530

3540

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Salin

ity (p

pt)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dep

th (m

)


APPENDIX. Continued.

Pennock Point

10

15

20

25

30

35

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

05

10152025303540

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Salin

ity (p

pt)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dep

th (m

)



Station 25

10

15

20

25

30

35

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

6.87

7.27.47.67.8

88.2

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

pH

05

10152025303540

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Sal

inity

(ppt

)

0123456789

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n (m

g/l)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dept

h (m

)



Kitching Creek Surface

10

15

20

25

30

35

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

pH

0

5

10

15

20

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Sal

inity

(ppt

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n (m

g/l)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dept

h (m

)



Kitching Creek Bottom

10

15

20

25

30

35

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Sal

inity

(ppt

)

012345678

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n (m

g/l)

1

2

3

4

5

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dept

h (m

)



Station 69

10

15

20

25

30

35

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

pH

0

200

400

600

800

1000

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Con

duct

ivity

(um

hos/

cm)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n (m

g/l)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

O-05 N-05 D-05 J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06

Dep

th (m

)



Station 66

10

15

20

25

30

35

M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06

pH

0

2

4

6

8

10

M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06

Salin

ity (p

pt)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n (m

g/l)



Station 67

10

15

20

25

30

35

M-06 J-06 J-06

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

M-06 J-06 J-06

pH

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

M-06 J-06 J-06

Salin

ity (p

pt)

012345678

M-06 J-06 J-06

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n (m

g/l)

datasonde monitoring in the loxahatchee river task 2: final … · 2018. 2. 21. · 3. ph –...

Documents