FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 72, NO. 2 



Table 8. — Analyses of variance of pre- and post-dredging dry weights and between stations, in the bay 



and dredged channel. 



computations were performed on an RCA 

 SPECTRA 70/46 computer.^ 



Two-way analyses of variance were performed 

 on dry weights of the samples drawn from sta- 

 tions 2-25; 2-25 plus channel stations A-J, M; 

 and channel stations A-J, M alone. 



Table 8 reveals that pre- and post-dredging 

 biomass varied significantly among stations 2-25, 

 among all stations, and between each channel 

 station. The variances in biomass between sta- 

 tions were not significant in the bay and combina- 

 tion of bay and channel, even though they 

 represented a substantial spectrum of substrata 

 and current velocities. Biomass variances were, 

 however, significant in the channel alone. There 

 was also no significance in the variances of the 

 interaction between stations and dredging, except 

 in the channel. 



The macrobenthic biomass in Goose Creek had 

 not returned to its pre-dredged level 11 mo after 

 dredging. 



In the channel substratum, which had a 

 virtually linear reduction in particle size and 

 current velocity progressing from east to west, 

 there was significance in both station to station 



'The authors are grateful for the assistance rendered by the 

 Hofstra University academic computing facility, Eugene In- 

 goglia. Director; John Pizzeriella, Programmer; Claire Gittel- 

 man, Statistician. 



variance and in the interaction between stations 

 and pre- and post-dredging variances. This 

 demonstrates a systematic difference between 

 stations, as well as a significant difference from 

 station to station in the manner in which the 

 animal populations responded to the dredging 

 process. 



A second two-way analysis of variance was 

 performed on all three sets of data in an attempt 

 to determine whether or not the variance in bio- 

 mass was a function of sediment type. The 

 sampling stations were classified according to the 

 sediment map (Figure 7), with verification pro- 

 vided by visual analysis of samples from the 

 suction corer. Table 9 lists the stations according 

 to their sediment classification. 



Table 9. — Classification of the Goose Creek sampling stations 

 according to sediment type. 



Sediment type 



stations 



Sand 



Muddy sand 

 Sandy mud 

 Mud-silt 

 Intertidal 



2, 3, 4. 9, 10 

 A, B, C. D 

 6, 7, 8. 24 

 E, F. G 

 11, 12, 18 

 H, I, J 



14,15,16,17 

 22, 23. 25, K 

 9A, 13,20.21 



460 



