one depth approximately every hour and there was considerable 

 variation in replicate samples taken on the same day at the same 

 location (Fig. 2, 3, 5). Gradients may also be more apparent 

 nearer the bottom, but the bottom tripping sampler was not used 

 any closer than 2 m. 



In contrast, the BNL in the Sheepscot estuary was sampled 

 with the submersible over a very short period of time and very 

 near the bottom. Except for chlorophyll concentrations, 

 gradients above the bottom were still not very apparent (Fig. 

 8), suggesting that biological enhancement was not directly 

 related to the amount of suspended sediment. 



Comparison of BNL by date and location. 



It was hypothesized that the BNL in Jordan Basin would be 

 more biologically enhanced than that at Mt. Desert Island. 

 Before that comparison can be made, the differences in the BNL on 

 the two dates at the Jordan Basin station must be examined, 

 because the chlorophyll and autotrophic nanoplankton profiles 

 (Fig. 3 and 4) suggest some differences between the two dates. 

 There was significantly more autotrophic nanoplankton, 

 chlorophyll, particle volume, copepod eggs and nauplii on the 

 second date than on the first, but many less post-naupliar 

 copepods (Tables 1 and 2). In addition to the differences in 

 concentrations of particles, organisms, and chemical 

 constituents, most indicators suggest that the material on the 

 second date was less degraded (Table 3). There was a 



Table 1. Comparison of numbers of organisms in BNL on two dates 

 in Jordan Basin and between Jordan Basin (All) and Mt . 

 Desert Island stations. * indicate pairs of means 

 which were significantly different (Student's 2-tailed 

 t-test, p < 0.05) 



1 x 10 8 cells/L 2 x 10 6 cells/L 3 number/m 3 



191 



