[Coral-List] Rugosity of artifical reefs

[Clifford J. Hearn]

Sorry, about the confusion. Better to call it rugosity. We are not talking about surface roughness. In the topographic world we use the tern 'roughness' which is the log of rugosity. 
 
Let me try again:
 
 I wonder whether it would be worthwhile our comparing the rugosity of artificial reefs with that for natural reefs. If rugosity is a good measure of topographic complexity and this is related to ecology and fish habitat, we could see some important science. We have good bathymetry for some natural reefs and would just need bathy/topo data for artificial reefs.

Cliff


Clifford J. Hearn

--- On Wed, 10/13/10, Steven Jachec <sjachec at fit.edu> wrote:


From: Steven Jachec <sjachec at fit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Roughness of artifical reefs
To: "Clifford J. Hearn" <clifford_hearn at yahoo.com>
Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 4:02 PM


I believe the roughness over natural reefs has been pursued by Stanford folks:  graduate students C MacDonald, R Lowe, M Reidenbach. Profs Koseff and Monismith. 

Cheers
Dr Steven Jachec

Sent from my iPhone...forgive any  mis-spellings. 

On Oct 13, 2010, at 3:27 PM, "Clifford J. Hearn" <clifford_hearn at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Listers
>  
> I wonder whether it would be worthwhile our comparing the rugosity (roughness) of artificial reefs with that for natural reefs. If rugosity is a good measure of topographic complexity and this is related to ecology and fish habitat, we could see some important science. We have good bathymetry for some natural reefs and would just need bathy/topo data for artificial reefs..
> Your thoughts?
> Cliff
> Clifford J. Hearn
> Working Science Consultancies
> 200, 2nd Avenue South #519, St Petersburg, Florida 33701
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>