3000 



2750 



h2 500 



$2250 

 ^2000 



750 



% 1500 



CD 



fc 1250 



£ 1000 



750 



500 



250 







































3 











— •— SITE 1 1956-1958 

 — -o-- SITE 2 1957-1959 

 .—+— • SITE 4 1959 











/\ 





















\r 



3 







NUMBERS ADJACENT TO POINTS 













f\ 



* 



> 



\4 

 o 





1 



NDICATE 



: TOTAL 



8 



MONTHS EXPOSED 



9 













\ 





\ 



> 



\ 





/ 



„-o— 



— o 

 \ 

 \ 













, 





, * 



\ 





\ 5 



i 



/ 







\ 



OjO 















i 



\ 



6 



A 



^ / 









"ML 



12 

 «~o 









/ 

 f 





5 



\ 



k 



O 



6 





















/ 

 f 





4 





• 

 V 



















1 



•— 



i 



2 



1 



1 

 / 



* 



• 



• 



• 



•*• 



•^ 



S>8 



9 



10 











/ 



r 



-*K 



- 2 >; 



/ 











""*•— 



— •— 1 



II 



— • 

 12 







APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. 



FIGURE 15 COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE BARNACLE FOULING SITES 

 1, 2, & 4. 



The fact that barnacles survived longer at Site 2 than at Site 1 

 presents a problem. It may be Uaat the Site 2 panel, introduced 2 

 months later than the Site 1 panel series and with somewhat lower 

 onset, presented greater and more suitable surfaces for set in later 

 months. It is also possible that there is sufficient environmental 

 variation to cause the observed difference; for example, Site 1 is 

 subjected to less dilute toxic materials and more silt load than Site 

 2, thus inhibiting Site 1 growth and set. It is also possible that the 

 fouling complex of the 2 sites varies sufficiently to produce this 

 difference. Balanus improvisus and Balanus amphitrite niveus are 

 both known in the area and could be responsible for the difference in 

 the seasonal set for the 4 Sites. 



18 



