February 11, 2008, 3:30 PM, Corless Auditorium
Seminar Abstract
Emily Shumchenia
The benthic habitat quality index (BHQ) was created by H. Nilsson & R. Rosenberg to aid in the interpretation of sediment profile images, which can, at times, be a subjective process. Although an accepted benthic successional model provides the premise of the BHQ, the creators warn that the scores from this index should only be interpreted after careful calibration in the study area. In addition, environmental indices like the BHQ will be most useful if all of the components contribute information toward answering a specific research question. During the summer of 2006 and summer of 2007, a total of 760 sediment profile images were taken in Greenwich Bay, RI, where periodic hypoxic events are relatively common during July and August. To confirm dissolved oxygen status, 2-6 probes recorded oxygen concentrations continuously throughout the study period. One research question in this study is “Do sediment profile images accurately reflect the dissolved oxygen conditions present over the previous 7-28 days?” The answer to this question is important if sediment profile imagery is to be used as a rapid-assessment tool for detecting change in the benthic community due to hypoxia. Contingency tables were set up for each component of the BHQ as one variable and oxygen regime (hypoxic or normoxic) as the second variable. Each component was evaluated for its ability to reflect dissolved oxygen conditions over the previous 7-28 days. Components had to show a positive response during hypoxia combined with a negative response during normoxia to be considered for interpretation. The results from this analysis will be taken into consideration when interpreting and comparing the spatial and temporal changes observed in the images from Greenwich Bay.
Emily Shumchenia received a B.S. in marine biology from URI in the spring of 2005. She entered GSO as a Ph.D. candidate in the fall of 2005. Her major professor is John King. Other core committee members are Candace Oviatt and Carol Thornber.
_____________________________
Please rank the abstract and presentation in areas A-G using the scale below:
0=Decline to Evaluate 2=Above Expected Standards 4=Below Expected Standards
1=Outstanding 3=Acceptable 5=Poor
C. Timing _______
D. Scientific Content _______ E. Quality of Verbal Communications _______ F. Adequacy of Visual Aids _______
G. Ability to Handle Questions During Discussion _______
Comments and Suggestions:
Evaluator: ______________________. Please return to Academic Affairs Office, Box 43.
