Supplementary Information
Appendix 1: Additional survey method details and AGRRA vs. video method comparison
Six video transects (1 m x 20 m) were performed at each site using a GoPro® camera
attached to a PVC stabilizing apparatus that allowed each diver to hold the camera steady with
two hands while performing a transect. Six 20 m video transects per site has been shown to be
sufficient to describe the coral community at a site (Cruz et al., 2008). Lead line of known length
was attached to the camera rig to allow the diver to maintain a constant height above the
substrate. Two lasers were placed on the camera rig 25 cm apart and were used to calibrate
distances during video transect analysis. The entire apparatus, including the GoPro® camera,
cost approximately $250, which is a more cost-effective option than commonly used stereovideo rigs that utilize much more expensive cameras and underwater housings. Video transects
were analyzed in the same manner as the AGRRA transects. Length and width of each coral was
recorded from measurements made while watching the video on a computer screen. The distance
between the two lasers at each given stopped frame was used to calibrate the length and width
measurements. Height of coral colonies was not recorded due to the two dimensional nature of
the video recordings. Coral cover and coral density were also calculated using video transects.
Video transects were calibrated in the field to be 1 m wide and 20 m long. However, due to
shallow water and conditions at some sites the transects were less than 1 m wide, creating a
slightly variable transect area, which was corrected for via the 25 cm laser scale.
All corals greater than 4 cm2 in area (as measured by a metric ruler) at least partially inside of
the video screen were surveyed following AGRRA guidelines (AGRRA 2003). The genus and
species of each coral was identified and number and size of individual colonies of each species
were recorded on underwater data sheets. The outward facing surfaces of each colony were
analyzed for health and mortality using parameters defined by AGRAA (live, pale, bleached,
new mortality, old mortality). After the data were collected, species diversity, abundance, species
richness, and coral life history (Darling et al., 2012) were calculated for each site.
The results of the two survey methods were analyzed separately and then compared. It was
determined that the data from the two transect methods could be combined for species richness,
abundance, and Shannon diversity, as survey method was not a significant factor in the ANOVA
(Table 3A). Percent coral cover was calculated using video transect data only, as the AGRRA
method over-estimates coral cover. This is due to the fact that the AGRRA methodology requires
any coral that is even partially within the transect to be quantified in full, leading to overestimates of coral cover. Coral density (# of corals/ m2) was also calculated from video transect
data only.
Each method has downsides. AGRRA surveys are time consuming (1 hour per transect) and
have the potential to overestimate coral cover. In addition, the diver must identify every coral
individually while also maintaining buoyancy and safe diving practices, which can be difficult
especially in rough weather. With video analysis, transects can be recorded much faster (less
than 1 hour for 3 surveys) with approximately 150% of the AGRRA survey area covered using
video in significantly less dive time. Videos were analyzed after the fact, allowing several
researchers to analyze the video together and make a more thorough identification of coral
species than underwater AGRRA surveys allow for. While limitations in video framing and the
two dimensional nature of the video prevent accurate measurements of individual size, coral
cover can also be estimated more accurately than with AGRRA methodology. Overall, video
analysis requires more time than field transects, but has the potential to be more accurate as the
time crunch or other external stressors that may be experienced underwater are no longer present.
The two methods are comparable in terms of results, however video surveys are more efficient in
the field and are have previously been shown to have the potential to be more accurate (Lirman
et al., 2007; Turner et al., 2015).
References
Cruz, I., Kikuchi, R.K. & Leão, Z.M. (2008) Use of the video transect method for characterizing the
Itacolomis reefs, eastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, 56, 271-280.
Darling, E.S., Alvarez‐Filip, L., Oliver, T.A., McClanahan, T.R. & Côté, I.M. (2012) Evaluating life‐history
strategies of reef corals from species traits. Ecology Letters, 15, 1378-1386.
Lirman, D., Gracias, N., Gintert, B., Gleason, A., Reid, R., Negahdaripour, S. & Kramer, P. (2007)
Development and application of a video-mosaic survey technology to document the status of
coral reef communities. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 125, 59-73.
Turner, J.A., Polunin, N.V., Field, S.N. & Wilson, S.K. (2015) Measuring coral size-frequency distribution
using stereo video technology, a comparison with in situ measurements. Environmental
monitoring and assessment, 187, 1-10.
Appendix 2: Nutrient sample processing and instrumentation details
Fine-scale nutrient dynamics at the site scale were quantified from dissolved inorganic nitrogen
[(DIN) = nitrate plus nitrite (NOx) and ammonium (NH4)] and dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
NOx measurements utilized the Spectrophotometric Elemental Analysis System (SEASII)
(Adornato et al., 2005; Adornato et al., 2007). Specifications for NOx measurements using
SEASII or dual channel Mini-SEAS (M-SEAS) instruments included a 5-10 nM limit of
detection with linear ranges of 1 to 500 nM or 100 to 5000 nM (see Adornato et al., 2005) using
a 15 cm liquid core waveguide. DOC measurements were conducted via the conventional
combustion catalytic oxidation method using a Shimadzu© TOC-L series analyzer (4 µg/L
detection limit). Dissolved ammonium in water samples was measured in the laboratory by
fluorescence following the method of (Holmes et al., 1999). Briefly, 3 ml of o-phthalaldehyde
working reagent was added to a 12 ml sample in acid-washed and DI-rinsed 15 ml centrifuge
tubes. After a two hour dark room temperature incubation, samples were analyzed with a Turner
Designs fluorometer fitted with an ammonium optical kit. The lower limit of detection is
between 100 and 200 nM.
References
Adornato, L., Kaltenbacher, E., Villareal, T. & Byrne, R. (2005) Continuous in situ determinations of nitrite
at nanomolar concentrations. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 52,
543-551.
Adornato, L.R., Kaltenbacher, E.A., Greenhow, D.R. & Byrne, R.H. (2007) High-resolution in situ analysis
of nitrate and phosphate in the oligotrophic ocean. Environmental science & technology, 41,
4045-4052.
Holmes, R.M., Aminot, A., Kérouel, R., Hooker, B.A. & Peterson, B.J. (1999) A simple and precise method
for measuring ammonium in marine and freshwater ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 56, 1801-1808.
Table S1: Pair-wise comparisons of effects of Site on Species Richness, Abundance,
Shannon Diversity, Percent Coral Cover, and Coral Density
Community Parameter Site Variable
Species Richness
Site
Abundance
Site
Shannon Diversity
Index
Site
Comparison
3-1
9-1
4-2
7-2
8-2
11-2
4-3
7-3
8-3
11-3
13-3
6-4
9-4
12-4
14-4
7-5
9-5
7-6
8-6
11-6
9-7
12-7
14-7
9-8
12-8
14-8
11-9
13-9
12-11
14-11
4-3
9-4
2-1
3-1
9-1
4-2
7-2
8-2
11-2
13-2
4-3
5-3
7-3
8-3
p-value
0.003
0.005
0.02
0.0008
0.01
0.002
0.003
0.0002
0.002
0.0004
0.01
0.04
0.0006
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.002
0.03
0.005
<0.0001
0.002
0.001
0.0004
0.03
0.02
<0.0001
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.006
0.0003
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.002
0.06
0.003
0.002
Percent Coral Cover
Site
Coral Density
Site
11-3
13-3
6-4
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7
9-8
11-9
12-9
13-9
14-9
4-1
7-1
8-1
7-2
4-3
7-3
8-3
6-4
9-4
13-4
14-4
7-5
8-5
7-6
8-6
9-7
12-7
13-7
14-7
9-8
11-8
12-8
13-8
14-8
11-9
14-11
3-1
4-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
11-1
3-2
0.005
0.006
0.07
0.0001
0.0021
0.04
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.03
0.0003
0.005
0.01
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.006
0.001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.004
0.001
0.005
0.0002
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.04
0.01
0.0003
<0.0001
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.005
<0.0001
4-2
9-2
4-3
5-3
7-3
8-3
11-3
13-3
14-3
5-4
6-4
9-4
12-4
13-4
14-4
7-5
11-5
7-6
8-6
11-6
13-6
9-7
12-7
14-7
9-8
12-8
14-8
11-9
13-9
12-11
14-11
13-12
0.0001
0.0003
<0.0001
0.002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.02
<0.0001
0.003
0.0004
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0.005
<0.0001
0.0001
0.003
<0.0001
0.0007
0.01
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0004
0.02
Table S1: Results of Tukey’s HSD tests evaluating the significance of the pair-wise comparisons of sites that had a
significant effect on species richness, abundance, Shannon diversity index, percent coral cover, or coral density.
Only significant pairwise comparisons (p<0.05) are included.
Table S2: Effects of Site and Site Type on DIN, DON, Total N, DOC, and C:N
Nutrient
Parameter
Site Variable
df
Sum sq
Mean sq
F value
p-value
DIN
DON
Total N
DOC
C:N
Site
Type
Site
Type
Site
Type
Site
Type
Site
Type
12
2
12
2
12
2
12
2
12
2
11.42
2.559
66179
4168
470282
36117
1037581
130514
4518
412
0.952
1.279
5515
2084
39190
18059
86465
65257
376.5
206.1
6.431
5.84
9.019
1.814
65.55
14.79
17.64
10.61
2.424
1.157
<0.0001
0.00395
<0.0001
0.168
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.00824
0.318
Table S2: Results of three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the effect of site variables on nutrient parameters.
Significant effects are in bold (p<0.05). df= degrees of freedom.
Table S3: Pair-Wise comparisons of effects of Site Type on DIN, DON, Total N, DOC, and
C:N.
Nutrient Parameter
DIN
Total N
Factor
Type
Type
DOC
Type
Comparison
lowTP-modTP
lowTP-extTP
modTP-extTP
lowTP-extTP
modTP-extTP
p-value
0.003
0.0004
<0.0001
0.004
<0.0001
Table S3: Results of Tukey’s HSD tests evaluating the significance of the pair-wise comparisons of factors that had
a significant effect on nutrient parameters. Only significant pairwise comparisons (p<0.05) are included.
Table S4: Pair-wise comparisons of effects of Site on DIN, DON, Total N, DOC, and C:N
Nutrient Parameter
Site Variable
Comparison
p-value
DIN
Site
DON
Site
Total N
Site
2-1
5-1
8-1
13-1
4-2
6-2
9-2
11-2
12-2
14-2
4-3
5-4
8-4
13-4
9-5
11-5
12-5
12-8
13-12
3-1
4-1
5-3
6-3
7-3
9-3
11-3
12-3
13-3
14-3
5-4
6-4
7-4
9-4
11-4
12-4
13-4
14-4
2-1
3-1
4-1
3-2
4-2
5-2
6-2
7-2
0.001
0.003
0.05
0.04
0.0001
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.0005
0.05
0.02
0.0002
0.01
0.003
0.04
0.03
0.001
0.04
0.02
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.03
0.0003
0.0006
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
DOC
Site
8-2
9-2
11-2
12-2
13-2
14-2
5-3
6-3
7-3
8-3
9-3
11-3
12-3
13-3
14-3
6-1
11-1
13-1
6-2
7-2
8-2
9-2
11-2
12-2
13-2
14-2
6-3
7-3
9-3
11-3
13-3
6-4
7-4
11-4
13-4
6-5
7-5
11-5
13-5
8-6
9-6
11-6
12-6
13-6
14-6
0.0007
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0004
0.02
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.009
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
0.005
<0.0001
0.0001
0.01
<0.0001
0.001
<0.0001
0.002
0.001
0.04
<0.0001
0.002
0.0005
0.02
0.004
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
C:N
Site
5-3
6-3
12-3
13-3
0.04
0.003
0.04
0.02
Table S4: Results of Tukey’s HSD tests evaluating the significance of the pair-wise comparisons of sites that had a
significant effect on nutrient parameters. Only significant pairwise comparisons (p<0.05) are included.
Table S5: Best AIC for Linear Mixed Effects Modeling of Ecological Parameters vs.
Temperature and Nutrient Parameters across Site Types
Stressor
Avg Annual Random 710.0903
Max Temp Intercepts
1328.830
AIC for
Shannon
Diversity
107.5465
710.1087
1328.855
107.5500
524.7008
494.2026
714.0903
1328.830
N/A
528.6762
498.1820
706.3120
1326.932
104.3242
524.1923
491.6645
706.9136
1327.564
104.3687
524.8521
492.3827
710.3120
1330.932
108.3238
528.1923
495.6645
703.0171
1323.695*
101.0127*
522.6420
488.2059
704.6560
1326.724
101.0689
524.8152
491.0418
707.0171
N/A
105.0009
N/A
N/A
702.0496*
1324.152
104.6144
519.8541
486.6901*
702.8012
1325.373
104.0936
521.6396
487.7144
706.0496
1328.152
108.0936
N/A
495.6645
712.6130
1331.366
112.5794
519.6016*
495.3170
722.0087
1343.542
114.3407
631.6420
507.8714
N/A
1335.357
N/A
N/A
N/A
Avg Annual
Range
# Days
above
Bleaching
Threshold
/Year
#
Consecutive
Days above
Bleaching
Threshold/
Year
Chl a
Model
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
AIC for
Richness
AIC for
Abundance
AIC for
Coral
Cover
524.6762
AIC for
Coral
Density
494.1820
and
Intercepts
Model
Table S5: Summary of linear mixed effects modeling and Best AIC procedure used to compare the effects of
temperature parameters on measured ecological parameters across all site types. Best AIC values for each
temperature parameter vs. ecological parameter comparison are in bold. An asterisk marks the comparison that
yielded the overall best AIC for each ecological parameter. N/A indicates AIC procedures that produced an error.
Table S6: p-values and R2 for Best AIC Model of Ecological Parameters vs. Temperature
and Nutrient Parameters across Site Types
Species
Richness
# Consec.
Days above
Bleaching
Threshold/
Year
Abundance
Shannon
Percent
Diversity
Coral Cover
# Days above # Days above Chl a
Bleaching
Bleaching
Threshold
Threshold
/Year
/Year
Coral
Density
# Consec.
Days above
Bleaching
Threshold/
Year
Best Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
p-value
R2c value
R2m value
<0.0001
0.7610529
0.5002392
0.003
0.5504569
0.3049785
<0.0001
0.7892397
0.5218640
0.02
0.6867260
0.2715017
0.001
0.3725624
0.6004781
Stressor with
Best AIC
Table S6: Summary of p and R2 values for the model selected by Best AIC analysis for each ecological parameter
across all site types. Significant p values are in bold. R2c= conditional R2 (proportion of variance explained by both
fixed and random factors), R2m= marginal R2 (proportion of variance explained by fixed factors).
Table S7: Best AIC for Linear Mixed Effects Modeling of Ecological Parameters vs.
Temperature and Nutrient Parameters at Low Sites Only
Stressor
Avg Annual Random 289.8196
Max Temp Intercepts
530.5712
AIC for
Shannon
Diversity
27.46166
289.8184
530.5672
27.45053
190.4676
199.0772
293.8184
534.5666
N/A
194.4676
N/A
285.9290*
528.6409
25.39730*
186.6463
192.2300*
286.0512
528.5779*
25.55151
186.5571*
192.2565
289.9290
N/A
29.39730
N/A
N/A
290.6083
533.6096
26.73971
193.1122
202.4296
290.5219
533.9034
26.29764
193.1480
202.6783
294.5210
537.6096
N/A
197.1122
206.4296
290.4414
532.4729
27.61417
189.1592
200.6553
290.4861
532.4671
27.71414
189.4894
200.5839
294.4414
N/A
31.61417
193.1592
289.9290
291.0817
533.5919
27.29986
291.0817
202.2333
299.0245
540.8483
35.33585
299.0245
209.8760
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Avg Annual
Range
# Days
above
Bleaching
Threshold
/Year
#
Consecutive
Days above
Bleaching
Threshold/
Year
Chl a
Model
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
and
Intercepts
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random
Slopes
Model
Random
Slopes
AIC for
Richness
AIC for
Abundance
AIC for
Coral
Cover
190.4715
AIC for
Coral
Density
199.0784
and
Intercepts
Model
Table S7: Summary of linear mixed effects modeling and Best AIC procedure used to compare the effects of
temperature parameters on measured ecological parameters across for low sites only. Best AIC values for each
temperature parameter vs. ecological parameter comparison are in bold. An asterisk marks the comparison that
yielded the overall best AIC for each ecological parameter. N/A indicates AIC procedures that produced an error.
Table S8: p-values and R2 for Best AIC Model of Ecological Parameters vs. Temperature
and Nutrient Parameters at lowTP Sites Only
Species
Richness
Abundance
Shannon
Diversity
Percent
Coral Cover
Coral Density
Stressor with
Best AIC
Best Model
Avg Annual
Range
Avg Annual
Range
Avg Annual
Range
Avg Annual
Range
Avg Annual
Range
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random Slopes
Model
Random
Intercepts
Model
Random Slopes
Model
Random Intercepts
Model
p-value
R2c value
R2m value
0.06
0.4816270
0.3399318
0.06
0.3738885
0.2718122
0.2
0.5343680
0.2118941
0.04
0.7640701
0.5901906
0.01
0.4630021
0.4448844
Table S8: Summary of p and R2 values for the model selected by Best AIC analysis for each ecological parameter at
low sites only. Significant p values are in bold. R2c= conditional R2 (proportion of variance explained by both fixed
and random factors), R2m= marginal R2 (proportion of variance explained by fixed factors).
Table S9: p-values and R2 for Linear Regression of Temperature and Nutrient Parameters
vs. NMDS1 by Site Type
lowTP
p-value of
slope
Avg Annual 0.01
Max Temp
Avg Annual 0.442
Range
Avg Annual <0.0001
Days
Above
Bleaching
Threshold
Avg Annual 0.05
Consecutive
Days
Above
Bleaching
Threshold
DOC
<0.0001
DIN
<0.0001
DON
0.0040
Chl a
0.6
modTP
extTP
R2
0.6268
p-value of
slope
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.4389
<0.0001
0.9514
0.9514
0.04
0.9514
<0.0001
0.9435
.06612
<0.0001
0.6664
<0.0001
0.8946
0.3184
0.2866
0.1892
0.0058
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
0.6
0.1892
0.5100
0.3611
0.0046
0.0119
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0006
0.1676
0.7958
0.7710
0.2878
R
2
R
0.1119
p-value of
slope
<0.0001
0.0104
2
0.8627
Table S9: Summary of p- and R2 values for temperature and nutrient parameters vs. NMDS1 by site type.
Significant p-values are in bold.
Table S10A: Linear Mixed Effects Model Fitting and Best AIC Procedure for Ecological
Parameters
Model
AIC for
Richness
AIC for
Abundance
AIC for
Shannon
Diversity
102.7938
AIC for
Coral
Cover
524.5521
AIC for
Coral
Density
243.8968
Random
706.6858
1325.505
Intercepts
Model
Random
714.7167
1333.007
112.1638
530.6484
253.6142
Slopes Model
Random
714.7167
1333.007
112.1638
N/A
243.1138
Slopes and
Intercepts
Model
Table S10A: Summary of Best AIC procedure used to compare the effects of each linear model type on measured
ecological parameters. Best AIC values for site type vs. ecological parameter comparison are in bold. N/A indicates
AIC procedures that produced an error.
Table S10B: p-values from Best AIC model for Ecological Parameters by Site Type
Site Type
Species
Abundance
Shannon
Percent Coral
Coral Density
Comparison
Richness
Diversity
Cover
0.2708
0.4662
0.3130
0.8369
0.4347
lowTP-modTP
0.1641
0.0028
0.0046
0.0008
0.0140
lowTP-extTP
Table S10B: p-values from the best AIC model for each ecological parameter. Statistically significant p-values are
in bold.
Table S11: p-values and R2 from Linear Regression of Temperature and Nutrient
Parameters vs. NMDS1 and NMDS2
Avg Annual
Max Temp
Avg Annual
Range
Avg Annual
Days
Above
Bleaching
Threshold
Avg Annual
Consecutive
Days
Above
Bleaching
Threshold
DOC
DIN
DON
Chl a
p-value of
slope
0.02
NMDS1
R2
NMDS2
R2
0.0327
p-value of
slope
<0.0001
0.0001
0.0926
<0.0001
0.4361
0.3
0.0063
<0.0001
0.5644
<0.0001
0.1026
<0.0001
0.6039
0.4154
0.2673
0.5
0.0028
<0.0001
0.2
0.0093
0.8
0.0172
0.3414
0.0338
<0.0001
0.02
0.5
0.0035
0.0434
0.009
Table S11: Summary of p- and R2 values for temperature and nutrient parameters vs. NMDS1 and NMDS 2.
Significant p-values are in bold.
Figure S1: In-situ temperature versus MUR SST
Figure S1: A comparison of in-situ temperature and MUR SST. In-situ loggers were collected from 6 sites along the
BBRS. The black line indicates the average in-situ temperature across all 6 sites. The blue line indicates the average
MUR SST across the same 6 sites. Black and blue clouds represent error of each measurement (±1 standard
deviation).
Figure S2: Temperature parameter maps
Figure S2: Maps showing the 4 parameters used to calculate site type: yearly maximum temperature (A), Mean
annual temperature range (B), Annual mean number of days above the bleaching threshold (C), and Annual mean
consecutive days above the bleaching threshold (D). Maps generated from means calculated from daily satellite
measurements taken from Jan 2003-Dec 2012.
Figure S3: Coral abundance, diversity, percent cover, and density by site type
Figure S3: Coral abundance (total # of coral individuals present) (A), Percent coral cover (B), Shannon Diversity
(C), and Coral density (D) by site type. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between site types are marked
with an asterisk.
Figure S4: Nutrient parameters by site type
Figure S4: In-Situ concentrations of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) (A), Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON)
(B), Total Nitrogen (TN) (C), Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) (D), and Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio (C:N) (E) by site
type. Measured in November 2014. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p<0.05). Letters a and b indicate
results of post hoc Tukey tests that show significant differences between site types (p<0.05).
Figure S5: Linear regression of Temperature and Nutrient Parameters vs. NMDS1 by site
type
Figure S5: Linear regression of average annual max temp (A), average annual temp range (B), average annual days
above the bleaching threshold (C), average annual consecutive days above the bleaching threshold (D), DOC (E),
DIN (F), DON (G), and Chl a (H) vs. NMDS1 by site type. R2 values are included for each regression that yielded a
significant slope (p-value <0.05).
Figure S6: Linear regression of temperature and nutrient parameters vs. NMDS2
Figure S6: Linear regression of average annual max temp (A), average annual temp range (B), average annual days
above the bleaching threshold (C), average annual consecutive days above the bleaching threshold (D), DOC (E),
DIN (F), DON (G), and Chl a (H) vs. NMDS2. R2 values are included for each regression that yielded a significant
slope (p-value <0.05).