48 



This is supported by the observation that eelgrass declines at the 

 bottom of the core coincide with large increases in Ruppia seeds, which 

 exceed 1 seed per cm-'. This suggests that either the environment was 

 shallow or more estuarine during deposition. Alternately, Ruppia 

 replaced eelgrass when the latter disappeared, because both species 

 occupy the habitat today, and Ruppia is a relatively minor component. 

 This seems unlikely, however, because Ruppia did not become abundant 

 during the most recent decline. If rates of deposition prior to the 

 wasting disease were similar to post disease rates, then the earlier 

 decline at 27 cm occurred -1906. 



The Apponagansett Bay core is least typical. Eelgrass seems to be 

 persistent in the bay with minor declines at 60 and 33 cm, until a major 

 decline at 21 cm. Subsequently eelgrass recovered, then again declined. 

 This pattern agrees with other evidence: eelgrass is abundant in the bay 

 on nautical charts from the 19th century, eelgrass was destroyed in 

 1931-32, then showed recovery on aerial photographs during the 1950's 

 and 60's, then disappeared again. In 1985, no eelgrass was found in the 

 inner Bay. The most recent loss of eelgrass appears due to declining 

 water quality from nutrient loading or increased turbidity form sediment 

 resuspension by boats (Costa, 1988). 



If the wasting disease occurred 21 cm here, and sedimentation 

 rates are constant, then the minor declines at 33 and 60 cm would 

 coincide with 1902 and 1834. 



