Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 1185–1195 | Cite as

Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats

  • D. M. BilkovicEmail author
  • M. Roggero
  • C. H. Hershner
  • K. H. Havens
Article

Abstract

Macrobenthic community indices were examined for their ability to characterize the influence of shoreline alteration and watershed land use in nearshore estuarine environments of the Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. Twenty-three watersheds were surveyed in 2002 and 2003 for nearshore macrobenthic assemblages, environmental parameters (i.e., dissolved oxygen, pH, total suspended solids, salinity, and sediment composition), shoreline condition, and land use. Two indices of macrobenthic biological integrity, benthic index of biological integrity in the nearshore (B-IBIN) and abundance biomass comparison (W-value), were evaluated for associations with environmental and shoreline condition, and riparian and watershed land use. Comparisons between nearshore measures of the B-IBI with offshore values (>2 m; Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biological integrity [B-IBICB]) were conducted to assess the ability of the index to reflect land use patterns at near and far proximities to shore. Nearshore macrobenthic communities were represented by a total of 94 species (mean number of species =9.2 ± 0.4 sample−1), and were dominated by the phyla Arthropoda, Annelida, and Mollusca. Temporal variability in environmental conditions and macrobenthic abundance and biomass may be attributable to the notable increase in precipitation in 2003 that led to nutrient influxes and algal blooms. For the biotic indices applied in the nearshore, the highest scores were associated with forested watersheds (W-value, B-IBIN). Ecological thresholds were identified with nonparametric change-point analysis, which indicated a significant reduction in B-IBIN and W-value scores when the amount of developed shoreline exceeded 10% and developed watershed exceeded 12%, respectively.

Keywords

Biotic Integrity Submerse Aquatic Vegetation Macrobenthic Community Biotic Index National Land Cover Database 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Alden, III,R. W., D. M. Dauer, J. A. Ranasinghe, L. C. Scott, andR. J. Llanso. 2002. Statistical verification of the Chesapeake Bay Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity.Environmetrics 13:473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd edition. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, D. A., E. R. Byron, andW. A. Wurtsbaugh. 1994. Summer habitat use by littoral-zone fishes in Lake Tahoe and the effects of shoreline structures.North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, M. R. Berman, K. J. Havens, andD. M. Stanhope. 2005. Evaluating estuarine indicators of ecosystem health in the nearshore of Chesapeake Bay, p. 365–379.In S. A. Bortone (ed.), Estuarine Indicators. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, R. P., D. H. Wardrop, K. W. Thornton, D. Whigham, C. Hershner, M. M. Brinson, andJ. S. Shortle. 2006. Integration of ecological and socioeconomic indicators for estuaries and watersheds of the Atlantic Slope. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR Program, Agreement R-82868401, Atlantic Slope Consortium, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, P. M. 1996. Presentation and interpretation of sediment quality triad data.Ecotoxicology 5:327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, K. R. 1990. Comparisons of dominance curves.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 138:143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, K. R. andR. M. Warwick. 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, U.K.Google Scholar
  9. Comeleo, R. L., J. F. Paul, P. V.August, J. Copeland, C. Baker, S. S. Hale, andR. L. Latimer. 1996. Relationships between watershed stressors and sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay estuaries.Landscape Ecology 11:307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Correll, D. L., T. E. Jordan, andD. E. Weller. 1992. Nutrient flux in a landscape: Effects of coastal land use and terrestrial community mosaic on nutrient transport to coastal waters.Estuaries 15:431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dauer, D. M. 1993. Biological criteria, environmental health and estuarine macrobenthic community structure.Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dauer, D. M., M. W. Luckenbach, andA. J. Rodi, Jr. 1993. Abundance biomass comparison (ABC method): Effects of an estuarine gradient, hypoxic/hypoxic events and contaminated sediments.Marine Biology 116:507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dauer, D. M., S. B. Weisberg, andJ. A. Ranasinghe. 2000. Relationships between benthic community condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake Bay.Estuaries 23:80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deegan, L. A., J. T. Finn, S. G.Ayvazian, C. A. Ryder-Kieffer, andJ. Buonaccorsi. 1997. Development and validation of an estuarine biotic integrity index.Estuaries 20:601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deluca, W. V., C. E. Studds, L. L. Rockwood, andP. P. Marra. 2004. Influence of land use on the integrity of marsh bird communities of the Chesapeake Bay, USA.Wetlands 24:837–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennison, W. C., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, J. C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. W. Bergstrom, andR. A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health.Bioscience 43:86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diaz, R. J., G. R. Cutter Jr, andD. M. Dauer. 2003. A comparison of two methods for estimating the status of benthic habitat quality in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 285–286:371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engle, V. D. andJ. K. Summers, 1999. Refinement, validation, and application of a benthic condition index for northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries.Estuaries 22:624–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folk, R. L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks, 2nd edition. Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  20. Hale, S. S., J. F. Paul, andJ. F. Heltshe. 2004. Watershed landscape indicators of estuarine benthic condition.Estuaries 27:283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland, A. F., D. M. Sanger, C. P. Gawle, S. B. Lerberg, M. S. Santiago, G. H. M. Riekerk, L. E. Zimmerman, andG. I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298:151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, L. E., J. C. Kurtz, andW. S. Fisher (eds.). 2000, Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  23. Je, J. G., T. Belan, C. Levings, andB. J. Koo. 2003. Changes in benthic communities along a presumed pollution gradient in Vancouver Harbour.Marine Environmental Research 57:121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jennings, M. J., M. A. Bozek, G. R. Hatzenbeler, E. E. Emmons, andM. D. Staggs. 1999. Cumulative effects of incremental shoreline habitat modification on fish assemblages in north temperate lakes.North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan, S. J. andP. A. Vaas. 2000. An index of ecosystem integrity for northern Chesapeake Bay.Environmental Science and Policy 3: S59-S88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.Fisheries 6:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karr, J. R. andE. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, 1st edition, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. Kerans, B. L. andJ. R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley.Ecological Applications 4:768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiddon, J. A., J. F. Paul, H. W. Buffum, C. S. Strobel, S. S. Hale, D. Cobb, andB. S. Brown. 2003. Ecological condition of US mid-Atlantic estuaries, 1997–1998.Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1224–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King, R. S., A. H. Hinse, F. D. Craige, andS. Grap. 2005. Regional, watershed and local correlates of blue crab and bivalve abundances in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, R. S. andC. J. Richardson. 2003. Integrating bioassessment and ecological risk assessment: An approach to developing numerical water-quality criteria.Environmental Management 31: 795–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lerberg, S. B., A. F. Holland, andD. M. Sanger. 2000. Responses of tidal creek macrobenthic communities to the effects of watershed development.Estuaries 23:838–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Limburg, K. E. andR. E. Schmidt. 1990. Patterns of fish spawning in Hudson River tributaries: Response to an urban gradient?Ecology 71:1238–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Llanso, R., D. Dauer, J. Voelstad, andL. Scott. 2003. Application of the benthic index of biotic integrity to environmental monitoring in Chesapeake Bay.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Llanso, R. J., L. C. Scott, D. M. Dauer, J. L. Hyland, andD. E. Russell. 2002a. An estuarine index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. I. Classification of assemblages and habitat definition.Estuaries 25:1219–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Llanso, R. J., L. C. Scott, J. L. Hyland, D. M. Dauer, D. E. Russell andF. W. Kutz. 2002b. An estuarine index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. II. Index development.Estuaries 25:1231–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meire, P. M. andJ. Dereu. 1990. Use of the abundance/biomass comparison method for detecting environmental stress: Some considerations based on intertidal macrozoobenthos and bird communities.Journal of Applied Ecology 27:210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morrisey, D. J., S. J. Turner, G. N. Mills, R. B. Williamson, andB. E. Wise. 2003. Factors affecting the distribution of benthic macrofauna in estuaries contaminated by urban runoff.Marine Environmental Research 55:113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Osborne, L. L. andD. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management.Freshwater Biology 29:243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul, J. F., R. L. Comeleo, andJ. Copeland. 2002. Landscape and watershed processes: Landscape metrics and estuarine sediment contamination in the mid-Atlantic and southern New England regions.Journal of Environmental Quality 31:836–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paul, M. J. andJ. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paul, J. F., K. J. Scott, D. E. Campbell, J. H. Gentile, C. S. Strobel, R. M. Valente, S. B. Weisberg, A. F. Holland, andJ. A. Ranasinghe. 2001. Developing and applying a benthic index of estuarine condition for the Virginian Province.Ecological Indicators 1:83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearson, T. H. andR. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment.Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 16:229–311.Google Scholar
  44. Qian, S. S., R. S. King, andC. J. Richardson. 2003. Two statistical methods for the detection of environmental thresholds.Ecological Modelling 166:87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Regier, H. A. 1993. The notion of natural and cultural integrity, p. 3–18.In S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G. Francis (eds.), Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems, Volume 1. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophylla for the Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. <|http://www.epa.gov/chesapeake/baycriteria.htm.|>Google Scholar
  47. van Dolah, R. F., J. L. Hyland, A. F. Holland, J. S. Rosen, andT. R. Snoots. 1999. A benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern USA.Marine Environmental Research 48:269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang, L., J. Lyons, andP. Kanehl. 1997. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams.Fisheries 22:6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warwick, R. M. 1986. A new method for detecting pollution effects on marine macrobenthic communities.Marine Biology 92:557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Warwick, R. M., T. H. Pearson, andRuswahyuni. 1987. Detection of pollution effects on marine macrobenthos: Further evaluation of the species abundance/biomass method.Marine Biology 95:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weisberg, S. B., J. Ranasinghe, D. M. Dauer, L. C. Schaffner, R. J. Diaz, andJ. B. Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay.Estuaries 20:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitfield, A. K. 1996. Fishes and the environmental status of South African estuaries.Fisheries Management and Ecology 3:54–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Bilkovic
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Roggero
    • 1
  • C. H. Hershner
    • 1
  • K. H. Havens
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceGloucester Point

Personalised recommendations