Reef-associated fauna in Chesapeake Bay: Does oyster species affect habitat function? H. Harwell* 1, P. Kingsley-Smith 2, M. Kellogg 3, K. Paynter, Jr.

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

An ontogenic comparison of relative fecundity and egg quality of female Crassostrea virginica from northern Chesapeake Bay Hillary Lane 1 Vince Politano.
Liège 2008 Multi-scale spatial variability of amphipod assemblages from the foliar stratum of the Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile meadow Nicolas Sturaro.
An Introduction to Multivariate Analysis
EFFECTS OF MORPHOLOGY, AGE, AND LOCATION ON HABITAT FUNCTION OF OYSTER REEFS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESTORATION Martin Posey 1, Troy Alphin 1, Ted Wilgis 1.
International Conference on Shellfish Restoration Charleston, SC Oyster Reef Restoration Using “Spat Seeding”: Early Reef Development and Performance.
Direct vs. indirect impacts of salinity on oyster (Crassostrea virginica) health and abundance Melanie L. Parker and William S. Arnold FWC - Fish & Wildlife.
Inter-site and inter-specific differences in rates of survival and growth of C. ariakensis and C. virginica: A collaborative on-bottom study in Virginia.
Eastern oyster settlement and early survival on alternative reef substrates adjacent to intertidal marsh, rip rap, and manmade oyster reef habitats in.
The College of WILLIAM & MARY P.G. Ross, M.W. Luckenbach and A.J. Birch Eastern Shore Laboratory, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William.
Increasing Tolerance for Perkinsus marinus Among Natural Crassostrea virginica Populations from Virginia Waters Ryan B. Carnegie and Eugene M. Burreson.
Assessment of Cultch Materials for Oyster Habitat Restoration in Georgia. Authors: Justin Manley*, Alan Power, Randal L. Walker, Dorset Hurley, Matthew.
Role of oyster age vs. oyster size in determining sex ratios on restored oyster reefs in Chesapeake Bay M. Lisa Kellogg, Marcy E. Chen, Victor S. Kennedy,
Interactions of Top Down and Bottom Up Forces and Habitat Complexity in Experimental Oyster Reef Microcosms William S. Rodney, Lisa Kellogg & Kennedy T.
Passive acoustics as a monitoring tool for evaluating oyster reef restoration Introduction Approximately 21 acres of oyster reef have been created in the.
Success Targets for Oyster Restoration Deriving Benchmarks from Natural Populations Nancy Hadley, Loren Coen, Michael Hodges, Dara Wilber and Keith Walters.
Abstract Organismal lipid content has been used as an indicator of habitat quality and has potential for use in the development of oyster reef restoration.
Karen Kesler, Vincent Politano, Kennedy Paynter Differentiating the impact of the physical and biotic components of the eastern oyster, Crassostea virginica,
Intra- and inter-habitat variation in macroalgae and coral diversity in the Bahamas Biosciences, University of Exeter, Exeter Abstract Macroalgae and coral.
Species abundance and diversity (Ch. 16). New Unit: Communities/Ecosystems Community: Interacting species in defined area. Functional groups: subdivide.
Conclusion -Velocity affects the temperature, pH and DO of a stream; the greater the velocity, the greater the water quality -The positive correlation.
Spatial and Temporal Variation of Epiphytic Growth on Zostera marina Tara Seely* and Mike Kennish** *Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Washington.
Communities: Quantifying community structure. Mary E. Allen Hartwick College.
Timed. Transects Statistics indicate that overall species Richness varies only as a function of method and that there is no difference between sites.
Effects of recent seagrass species change on habitat structure and function: Preliminary research proposal Emily French Summer 2013.
OUR Ecological Footprint …. Ch 20 Community Ecology: Species Abundance + Diversity.
>Vertical gradient; >FW overlays SW; >FW flow dominates over tides >greater vertical mixing; >Moderate tidal action >Vertically homogenous; >Vigorous tidal.
Panama City Trip. Travel Itinerary Leave DISL at 6:45 AM Leave DISL at 6:45 AM Meet outside dorms ~6:30 AM to load vehicles Meet outside dorms ~6:30 AM.
Utilization of Benthic Invertebrates as Salinity Indicators in South Florida Rivers, Lessons from the Peace and Alafia Rivers Utilization of Benthic Invertebrates.
Impacts of upstream drought on downstream oysters in Apalachicola Bay Laura E. Petes NOAA Climate Program Office.
Caged Crassostrea ariakensis Deployment in Chesapeake Bay: Growth, Disease and Mortality Kennedy T. Paynter, Jacob Goodwin, Marcy Chen University of Maryland,
Oyster Reefs as a Restoration Tool: Do Reef Structure, Physicochemical Conditions, and Wave Energy Environment Affect Reef Sustainability? Sandra M. Casas.
Diversity of bacteria associated with Montastraea spp. across sea water quality gradient in the United States Virgin Islands S. Arora, M.E. Brandt, N.
How the decline of ocean species threatens human well-being How the decline of ocean species threatens human well-being Emmett Duffy Virginia Institute.
Analysis of environmental variables and fouling organisms on an experimental artificial reef area of Daya Bay Chen haigang South China Sea Fisheries Institute,
Secondary Production of Infaunal Benthic Communities in Chesapeake Bay in Comparison to Restored Oyster Reefs Amanda Lawless and Dr. Rochelle Seitz Virginia.
Mechanisms driving nonnative plant-mediated change in small mammal populations and communities Dan Bachen.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) abundance and diversity in the tidal Potomac River and estuary By Nancy Rybicki, Jurate Landwehr, Edward Schenk, and.
Purpose : Stocking Density, Walleye Survival, and Zooplankton Communities at Baldhill National Fish Hatchery Amy Doll 1, Casey Williams 1, Kurt Eversman.
Oyster Reef Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Kelly Galyean Department of Biological Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania Introduction Oyster reefs in.
ASSESSING RESIDENT FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE SIMILARITY BETWEEN RESTORED AND NATURAL OYSTER REEFS Keith Walters 1 and Loren Coen 2 1 Marine Science Department,
Impacts of hypoxia on key benthic infauna and their predators in Chesapeake Bay Rochelle D. Seitz & W. Chris Long Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,
Distribution of hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) on a remote island in the Great South Bay, NY Ryan Schab Department of Biological Sciences, York College.
Geographic variations in microbial cytometric diversity
Ecological considerations for oyster restoration: interactions between oyster larvae and reef-associated fauna Brian B. Barnes*, Mark W. Luckenbach, Peter.
Biodiversity Biology ATAR Year 11 Biology 1AB Biology 3AB.
LILLY THAYER BOT 437 SPRING 2009 Algal Community Succession.
Results I) Regional Survey Rarefaction curves leveled off across sites, suggesting that the sample effort was sufficient to capture differences between.
The use of the Pinkham-Pearson index for the comparison of community structure in Biosim2 to identify statistically-valid sectors of taxa By Carlos Pinkham.
Species richness The number of species is an important biological variable that scientists try to quantify.
Middle Fork Project AQ 3 – Macroinvertebrate and Aquatic Mollusk Technical Study Report Overview May 5, 2008.
OUR Ecological Footprint …. Fall 2008 IB Workshop Series sponsored by IB academic advisors Study Abroad for IB Majors Thursday, October 30 4:00-5:00PM.
Effects of Stream Restoration: A Comparative Study of Pine Run in Felton, Pennsylvania Luke Mummert, Department of Biological Sciences, York College of.
Vertical Distribution of Larvae off the Coast of Assateague Island, Virginia Carlee Kaisen Department of Biological Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania.
Sea Surface Temperature as a Trigger of Butterfish Migration: A Study of Fall Phenology Amelia Snow1, John Manderson2, Josh Kohut1, Laura Palamara1, Oscar.
Figure 1. Examples of field experiments and observations used to assess whether some habitats serve as nurseries. (a) A drop trap used to compare density.
Charlotte Levy1 & Eloise Brown2
William S. Rodney, Lisa Kellogg & Kennedy T. Paynter
Zooplankton: An investigation into Biomass and Biodiversity
Mark W. Luckenbach1, Elizabeth North2, M
Predation as a mechanism of invasion resistance
Robert Lafreniere1,2, Alyson Eberhardt2,3
Assessing oyster reef habitat value through naked goby
ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING TRIPLOID INDUCTION USING HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE IN THE EASTERN OYSTER (Crassostrea virginica) Name: Ian Sewell (MSc.
P.G. Ross, M.W. Luckenbach and A.J. Birch
Landscape Ecology in the Marine Environment
Secondary Production of Infaunal Benthic Communities in Chesapeake Bay in Comparison to Restored Oyster Reefs Amanda Lawless and Dr. Rochelle Seitz Virginia.
Species Diversity.
Presentation transcript:

Reef-associated fauna in Chesapeake Bay: Does oyster species affect habitat function? H. Harwell* 1, P. Kingsley-Smith 2, M. Kellogg 3, K. Paynter, Jr. 3 and M. Luckenbach 1. 1 Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William & Mary 2 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 3 University of Maryland Illustration by Kent Forrest, © VIMS

Complexity Abundance Macroinvertebrate densities and species richness are generally positively correlated with structural complexity (Crowder and Cooper 1982, Diehl 1992). The Role of Habitat Complexity: Structurally complex habitats offer a greater variety of different microhabitats and niches, allowing more species to co-exist and contribute to within habitat diversity (Pianka 1988, Levin 1992). The importance of habitat heterogeneity / complexity has been investigated in many marine systems, including coral reefs, seagrass beds, rocky intertidal, mangroves, macroalgae, and oyster reefs.

C. virginica C. ariakensis Photo credits: Mark Luckenbach C. ariakensis C. sikamea Does habitat complexity vary between oyster species? If so, how will these differences affect habitat utilization?

Compare the complexity of experimental C. ariakensis and C. virginica reefs by examining vertical relief and surface complexity. Evaluate and compare the utilization of experimental C. ariakensis and C. virginica reefs by other organisms. Investigate the relationship between the development of reef associated communities and habitat complexity. Objectives

Experimental Design 4 sites in Chesapeake Bay 4 experimental “reef” treatments at each site: - triploid C. virginica only - triploid C. ariakensis only - 50% C. v. & 50% C. a - Shell only 2 replicates of each treatment per site Treatments placed in cages for biosecurity Each cage has a matrix of 5 x 5 trays

Atlantic Ocean Chesapeake Bay Delaware Bay SEVERN RIVER Subtidal (3 - 4m) Low salinity ( mean daily psu) Low predation pressure Low Dermo / No MSX PATUXENT RIVER Subtidal (3 - 4m) Low salinity ( mean daily psu) Moderate predation pressure Low Dermo / No MSX YORK RIVER Subtidal (1 - 2m) Mid salinity ( mean daily psu) High predation pressure High Dermo / High MSX MACHIPONGO RIVER Intertidal High salinity (5 -33 mean daily psu) High predation pressure High Dermo / Low MSX

Sampling Procedure

Quantifying Habitat Complexity maximum vertical height average ‘reef’ height (n = 10) surface rugosity index

Statistical Analysis 2-way ANOVA’s: Site and treatment effects on macrofaunal abundance, biomass, species richness, species evenness, and Shannon- Wiener diversity. Indices of habitat complexity (maximum and average vertical heights, surface rugosity) between sites and treatments. Nonparametric multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) to evaluate variations in community structure between treatments. Data were log transformed when necessary to meet assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Pair-wise comparisons were conducted via Tukey’s tests.

Severn Patuxent York Machipongo FactorFpTukey Comparisons Site < York A, Patuxent A, Severn A, Machipongo B Patuxent A, York A, Severn B, Machipongo C Treatment < C.a. A, mix A, C.v. A, shell B C.a. A, mix A, C.v. B, shell C Site*Treatment < Treatment effects driven by YR and PR sites

Habitat Complexity: Surface Rugosity Severn (low salinity) Patuxent (mid salinity) York (high salinity) Machipongo (high salinity, intertidal) FactorFpTukey Comparisons Site21.46< York A, Severn B, Patuxent B, Machipongo C Treatment29.54< C.a. A, mix A, C.v. A, shell B Site*Treatment Treatment effects most pronounced at York

Severn (low) Patuxent (mid) York (high) Machipongo (high, intertidal) # of species # of dominant taxa Total # of associated organisms 17,00932,41940,6954,311 Total biomass of associated fauna (g) Total oyster biomass (g) Between-sites Comparison of Reef-associated Fauna July 2006

Dominant Reef-associated Fauna Species Richness: Lowest Species Evenness: Intermediate Diversity: Lowest Species Richness: Highest Species Richness: Intermediate Species Evenness: Intermediate Species Evenness: Lowest Species Evenness: Highest Diversity: Highest Diversity: Lowest F = p < F = 59.94p < F = 64.38p < 0.001

Mean total number of organisms per tray SevernPatuxentYorkMachipongo A AB BC >> > (F = , p < 0.001) F = p = (high salinity > mid salinity > low salinity > high salinity, intertidal) Total Number of Organisms

Mean abundance per gram of oyster biomass FactorFpTukey Comparisons Site23.97<0.0001Machipongo A, Patuxent B, York B, Severn B Treatment C.v. A, C.a. B, mix B Site*Treatment Treatment effects driven by PR and YR sites Standardized Total Abundance

SpeciesF p Tukey Comparisons C. equlibra C.v. A mix B C.a. B C. penantis C.v. A mix B C.a. B C. lacustre C.v. A mix AB C.a. B E. levis C.v. A mix B C.a. B G. mucronatus C.v. A mix B C.a. B P. tenuis C.v. A C.a. B mix B D. microphthalmus C.v. A C.a. B mix B H. dianthus C.v. A C.a. B mix B N. succinea C.v. A C.a. B mix B P. gouldii C.v. A mix B C.a. B C. sapidus C.v. A C.a. AB mix B M. tenta C.v. A mix B C.a. B M. arenaria C.v. A mix AB C.a. B G. strumosus C.v. A mix B C.a. B G. bosci C.v. A mix B C.a. B H. hentz C.v. A mix AB C.a. B B. bisuturalis C.v. A mix B C.a. B C. fornicata C.v. A mix AB C.a. B R. punctostriatus C.v. A mix B C.a. B U. cinerea C.v. A mix B C.a. B

Conclusions Changes in both faunal assemblages and habitat complexity indices were more pronounced between sites than within sites. In mid to high salinity subtidal sites, C. virginica’s ability to support higher abundances of associated fauna per unit of oyster biomass may be offset by: C. virginica ‘reefs’ supported higher abundances of over 20 different species of associated fauna per unit oyster biomass compared to C. ariakensis ‘reefs’. ‘Reefs’ containing both oyster species most often supported abundances similar to those of non-native ‘reefs’, illustrating a possible effect of multi-species reefs, should C. ariakensis be introduced. Higher growth rates of C. ariakensis, resulting in higher oyster biomass per area of oyster bottom. Higher average reef height of C. ariakensis reefs.

ESL: Brian Barnes, Alan Birch, Reade Bonniwell, Stephanie Bonniwell, Roshell Brown, Al Curry, Sean Fate, PG Ross, Edward Smith, Jamie Wheatley ESL Summer Aides: Raija Bushnell, Ben Hammer, Sarah Mallette, Andrew Matkin, Andrew Wilson UMD: Steve Allen, Marcy Chen, Jake Goodwin, Mark Sherman, Nancy Ward UMCES Horn Point: Stephanie Tobash, Angela Padaletti VIMS ABC: Katie Blackshear, Shane Bonnot, Ryan Gill, Karen Hudson Statistical and taxonomic assistance: David Gillett Acknowledgements