Shell/habitat dynamics in oyster restoration and fishery management

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Benjamin W. Stone 1 Peter Kingsley-Smith 1, Bowdoin Lusk 2, Barry Truitt 2, Joy Brown 3, Mark Faherty 4 & Gus Lorber 5 1 South Carolina Department of Natural.
Advertisements

Planning for Our Future:
Harris Creek Case Study: Oyster Restoration and GIT Collaboration Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board August 2, 2012 Peyton Robertson Fisheries Goal.
The Effect of Cow Nose Ray Predation on Oyster Restoration and the Use of Spat on Shell for Brood Stock Enhancement of Sanctuary Reefs A. T. Leggett, Jr.,
Increasing Tolerance for Perkinsus marinus Among Natural Crassostrea virginica Populations from Virginia Waters Ryan B. Carnegie and Eugene M. Burreson.
Public/Private Oyster Restoration in Virginia Virginia Institute of Marine Science/ Virginia Marine Resource Commission Michael S. Congrove, Standish K.
Amanda Luna Mera ECL 212B H OW TO GET THERE FROM HERE : E COLOGICAL AND E CONOMIC DYNAMIC OF E COSYSTEM S ERVICE P ROVISION S ANCHIRICO AND S PRINGBORN,
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology Stephen A. Karl Associate Researcher.
Title: Threats to the ocean: on the role of ecosystem approaches to fisheries Paper by Christensen, V., K. A. Aiken, M. C. Villanueva Social Science.
Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the Gulf of Mexico Becky Allee Gulf Coast Services Center.
Subjects – Energy Flow and Chemical Cycles – Photosynthesis and Respiration – Plant Processes Standards Next GenerationBiologyEnvironmental Modeling how.
Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Fisheries Management
FISH POPULATION DYNAMICS
The material in this slide show is provided free for educational use only. All other forms of storage or reproduction are subject to copyright- please.
Louisiana Oyster Management In The Wake Of Major Hurricanes Patrick D. Banks Marine Fisheries Biologist Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Peyton Robertson, NOAA February Goal: Restore oyster populations in 20 tributaries by 2025 Tributary Selection: MD & VA Oyster Restoration Interagency.
OPTIMAL STRATEGIES FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE Koel Ghosh, James S. Shortle, and Carl Hershner * Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,
Hancock Springs A natural lab for studying the roles of physical habitat, nutrient availability, and non-native species to inform river restoration John.
Population Dynamics Mortality, Growth, and More. Fish Growth Growth of fish is indeterminate Affected by: –Food abundance –Weather –Competition –Other.
Fishery Biology. Fisheries Management n Provide people with a sustained, high, and ever-increasing benefit from their use of aquatic resources n Problems.
Mapping the Impacts of Marine Debris Left in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina 61 st Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference 7 March, 2007 Brendan M. Bray NOAA.
Secondary Production of Infaunal Benthic Communities in Chesapeake Bay in Comparison to Restored Oyster Reefs Amanda Lawless and Dr. Rochelle Seitz Virginia.
Peyton Robertson, Sustainable Fisheries GIT Chair Chesapeake Bay Program March 13 th, 2013 Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) abundance and diversity in the tidal Potomac River and estuary By Nancy Rybicki, Jurate Landwehr, Edward Schenk, and.
REEF BALLS: Designing A Reef To Achieve Specific Goals Copyright, 2000 © Reef Ball Development Group, Ltd. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ROLE OF DIVERS IN.
Designing Wetland Conservation Strategies under Climate Change Jiayi Li, Elizabeth Marshall, James Shortle, Richard Ready, Carl Hershner Department of.
1 NOAA Priorities for an Ecosystem Approach to Management A Presentation to the NOAA Science Advisory Board John H. Dunnigan NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team Lead.
Wildlife, Fisheries and Endangered Species
SAV Management Strategy 1 Title of Presentation Date Image or Graphic.
Water Quality in the Rappahannock River and its Effect on Oysters Kevin Gill.
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER METRICS TEAM REPORT STEPHANIE REYNOLDS WESTBY Presentation to Maryland Oyster Advisory CommissionMay 18, 2011.
Peyton Robertson, Sustainable Fisheries GIT Chair PSC Meeting February 16, 2012 Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team: Key Accomplishments.
CBSAC 2012 Blue Crab Advisory Report Figures. Figure 1. Winter dredge survey index of total blue crab abundance (density of males and females, all sizes.
Marine Reserves 12/15/08. Laws protecting marine biodiversity 1975 Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 1979 Global Treaty.
Brian Ellithorpe & Ericka Oleson. Coral Reefs: the Rainforests of the Ocean.
Limiting Factors in the Success of Habitat Restoration Sites for O. Conchaphila in San Francisco Bay For the: 9 th International Conference on Shellfish.
PRINCIPLES OF STOCK ASSESSMENT. Aims of stock assessment The overall aim of fisheries science is to provide information to managers on the state and life.
Chris Harvey NOAA Fisheries NWFSC, Seattle OVERVIEW: THE 2014 STATE OF THE CALIFORNIA CURRENT REPORT FROM THE CCIEA TEAM.
Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team Executive Committee Meeting March, 26 th 2012.
Chesapeake Bay Program
CHAPTER10 Project Human Resource Management
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Metrics Workgroup Report Summary
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Hypoxia Forecasts as a Tool for Chesapeake Bay Fisheries
IBFMPs Goals and Objectives
Louisiana Oyster Management
CBP Strategic Communications Plan
CORAL REEF CRISIS Think Tank # 5: A Strategic Planning Session for Ocean Acidification Research Little Cayman Research Centre December 3 – 7, 2007.
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System:
Are we adequately managing the oyster resources of Delaware Bay?
Climate Change and Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay
Day 1: Natural Populations
WALLACE RESOURCE LIBRARY
Population Dynamics.
Chapter 18 Lecture Slides
Galveston Bay Bottom Ecosystem System Features
Michael, B. D. , Trice, T. M. , Heyer, C. J. , Stankelis, R. M
AquaSpace Case Study Houtman – Abrolhos Archipelago, Western Australia: Issues and Tools The research leading to these results has been undertaken as.
FISH HABITAT OUTCOME Gina Hunt MD. Department of Natural Resources
Investigating Population Growth Rates
An Invasive Species of the Chesapeake Bay
Population Dynamics.
Oyster survival, recruitment and production & habitat availability
Recruitment of oysters in Mobile Bay
Delivering Conservation
Secondary Production of Infaunal Benthic Communities in Chesapeake Bay in Comparison to Restored Oyster Reefs Amanda Lawless and Dr. Rochelle Seitz Virginia.
Bay Grass Abundance 42% Bay Grass Abundance of Goal Achieved
Fisheries Models To produce a good fisheries model, we must account for all contributions to reproduction, growth, and mortality, throughout the life cycle.
The Fishery Resource: Biological and Economic Models
Presenters: Jeff Horan, Habitat GIT Chair Bill Stack, CWP
Presentation transcript:

Shell/habitat dynamics in oyster restoration and fishery management Shell/habitat dynamics in oyster restoration and fishery management. Supported by the Chesapeake Bay Trust. Award period 1/23/2017-2/28/2018 Collaborating investigators: Roger Mann*, Melissa Southworth, Marcia Berman, John Thomas, Tamia Rudnicky (all VIMS), James Wesson (retired, former VMRC), Mitch Tarnowski (MD DNR) * Roger Mann, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (rmann@vims.edu, 804-815-3550(cell)) presentation to Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Goal Implementation Team March 27, 2017

Reference points for oyster resource management: how did we get here and why the obsession with shell budgets? Set a goal of No Net Loss of living oysters or shell substrate: these apply to BOTH restoration efforts and fishery management. Recruitment (R) and growth dictate addition to the living component. Natural mortality (M) and fishing mortality (F) dictate loss of oysters. M contributes to the shell substrate, F does not. High mortality rates result in low shell accumulation because contributing oysters are small – low mortality with oysters surviving to larger size contribute much more shell. Shell is lost to burial (B) and biological and chemical degradation (D). Shell loss rates are salinity dependent and independent of supply from mortality. Accreting reefs require equilibrium between shell addition and loss requires sustained recruitment, growth and survival of oysters to large size prior to death. Offsetting inadequate shell supply from natural processes through repletion (r) is NOT a single addition process – it requires continuing addition forever. Single replenishment action to suitable bottom IS NOT restoration. Examine the following shell budget diagrams where addition process are in BLUE and loss processes are in RED. Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

Description of shell pools and processes. Addition process , loss processes Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, including disease adds shell to exposed pool Substrate enhances recruitment Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

Consider the following shell budget scenarios in management of both restoration and fisheries: which are stable and which are not, and more so which will accrete and rebuild habitat? Scenario # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Disease - + Overfishing Fishing Repletion Stable? Y? N Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

#1. Natural reef with accretion, no F, no r, shell accretes As M>(B+D), system stable over extended periods. Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, adds shell to exposed pool Substrate enhances recruitment Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

#2. Natural reef, no F, no r, but increased M due to disease. Decreased oyster longevity, lower shell addition rate to exposed layer, no accretion as M<(B+D), system fails. Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, including disease adds shell to exposed pool Decreased substrate enhancement Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

This is the reality of sanctuaries! #3. Natural reef, no F, increased M (disease). Decreased oyster longevity, lower shell addition rate to exposed layer, offset by CONTINUAL replenishment until M=(B+D), system stable. Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, including disease adds shell to exposed pool Increased substrate enhancement Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent This is the reality of sanctuaries! Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

#4. Overfishing, no disease, no r, but F removes shell such That M<(B+D), system fails as substrate disappears. Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, adds shell to exposed pool Decreased substrate enhancement Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

Decreased oyster longevity in those not fished, lower shell addition #5. Natural reef, no r, but with fishing, F, and increased M (disease). Decreased oyster longevity in those not fished, lower shell addition rate to exposed layer, no accretion as M<(B+D), system fails. Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, including disease adds shell to exposed pool Decreased substrate enhancement Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

This is the reality of fisheries! #6. Natural reef, limited fishing, F, and increased M (disease). Decreased oyster longevity, lower shell addition rate to exposed layer balanced by CONTINUAL replenishment until M=(B+D), system stable. Fishing mortality, F, with loss of shell Recruitment, R, and growth: S/R relationship Live oyster population characterized by density and demographics Natural mortality, M, including disease adds shell to exposed pool Continual substrate enhancement Exposed shell layer (brown shell) – substrate for recruitment Replenishment, r Loss to burial, B Loss to biological degradation and chemical dissolution, D, salinity dependent This is the reality of fisheries! Reef structure - buried shell mixed with sediment Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

Shell budget scenarios: long term observations in VA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Disease - + Overfishing Fishing Repletion Stable? Y N Scenario #6 applies everywhere in VA except a limited number of reefs in James River which exhibit very high recruitment to offset impact of reduced longevity on shell supply. All other systems have varying levels of shell replenishment to maintain substrate cover. Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

Objectives for the current study. Develop salinity dependent shell budgets for tributary – scale restoration sites in Maryland and Virginia under the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement and for actively fished and rotational harvest reefs in Maryland and Virginia. Analysis of shell amounts required to maintain sufficient shell and reef habitat based shell budgets derived from deliverable #1. Estimates of future shell resource needs for different areas and/or management types. Develop a report that outlines how to apply this methodology to other areas in the Bay . Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017

Progress since beginning of project (~7 weeks) The MD DNR survey database for monitoring (live oysters plus shell) has been obtained and is being reformatted at VIMS to as near as possible to format of VMS/VMRC monitoring database to facilitate analysis (Thomas, VIMS). VIMS database for survey map coordinates (shape files)are being reformatted to allow item #3 - below. (Southworth, VIMS) Writing of scripts to analyze/condense survey data to provide location dependent time series of live oyster and shell data in common format (Thomas & Mann, VIMS) Items 1 through 3 above are requirements to development of rate budgets for live and shell components of the “graphic budgets” displayed in prior slides – this activity is planned for April-May period. We have engaged VIMS CCRM expertise in GIS graphic development to portray all of these results in a parallel presentation format to complex databases (Marcia Berman plus support from Tamia Rudnicky). This builds on long term collaboration between Mann lab ad CCRM – Google VOSARA for an example. We will build from this template in the project effort. Questions? Mann - GIT – 3/27/2017