Raw and Normalized Foraminiferal Data for Chincoteague Bay and the Marshes of Assateague Island and the Adjacent Vicinity, Maryland and Virginia- July 2014

Sediment samples from the inner shelf of the Delmarva Peninsula on the inner continental shelf were collected using a Van Veen grab sampler. The top 1 cm of recovered, undisturbed sediment was scraped off from the Van Veen sample for further analysis. Samples were stored chilled, on ice, from the time of collection (July 22 to July 25, 2014) until their arrival at the SPCMSC on August 7, 2015. Upon arrival, the samples were preserved and stained using 90% ethanol mixed with Rose Bengal to distinguish between live (and recently live) and dead foraminifera (modified from Walton, 1952). Each centrifuge tube was shaken twice daily for at least two weeks prior to lab processing.

Following a two-week staining period, foraminiferal sample volumes were recorded from the centrifuge tube they were stored in. Once recorded, samples were washed over a 63- and 850-micron (µm) sieve in order to remove ethanol, clay material, and to separate out large organics (Schonfeld and others, 2012). In some cases, multiple washes were necessary to remove all clay aggregates. Once dry, some of the samples with a high sand content were processed using sodium polytungstate in order to concentrate foraminifera (Munsterman and Kerstholt, 1996). Prior to picking, samples were dry sieved over 125 and 250 µm sieves in order to create four splits; 63–125, 125–250, 250–850, and >850 µm and vialed separately. For picking, the 125–250 and 250–850 size fractions for each sample were split into equal parts using a microsplitter and spread evenly over a hole punched, gridded picking tray. Entire splits were picked until approximately 200 foraminiferal specimens were acquired to enable the calculation of foraminiferal densities. A select few samples collected from the offshore sites were picked for contrast with estuarine and surface samples while attempting to choose sites that vary geographically. Foraminiferal identifications were made by making comparisons with published literature. The foraminiferal data presented in this publication include raw count data and volumetrically normalized (25 mL) specimen counts.

Added keywords section with USGS persistent identifier as theme keyword.