Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 474–486 | Cite as

Tidal migrations of nekton in salt marsh intertidal creeks

Article

Abstract

Salt marsh intertidal creeks are important habitats for dozens of species of nekton, but few studies have attempted to quantify patterns of tidal movement. We used the sweep flume, a new sampling device, to investigate relationships between depth and movements of nekton inside the mouths of intertidal creeks. Sweep flumes located in three creek beds were used to collect nekton at 10 cm increments (10–100 cm of water depth) during flood and ebb tides in the North Inlet, South Carolina, salt marsh. Of the 37 taxa collected, 13 comprised>99.5% of the total catch and were the focus of the analysis. A nonlinear mixed modeling procedure was used to determine, the depth at which each major taxon reached peak abundance during flood tides. With high degrees of spatial and temporal consistency, resident taxa entered early on the rpsing tide and transient taxa entered during mid to late tide. Depths of peak migrations varied among taxa and were consistent between creeks, days (within months), and years. As summer progressed, depths of peak migration increased for young-of-the-yearLeiostomus xanthurus, Lagodon rhomboides, Mugil curema, Eucinostomus argenteus, andLitopenaeus setiferus as their median sizes increased. Within tides, depths of migration increased as a function of size forL. xanthurus andM. curema. Comparisons between flood and ebb tides indicated that most taxa exited the creeks at approximately the same depths at which they entered. Relationships between major taxa pairs suggested that biotic interactions may have contributed to the structure of the migrations observed in this study. Our results are the first to demonstrate quantitatively that the migrations of nektonic taxa into intertidal creeks are structured and related to depth.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Allen, D. M., S. K. Service, andM. V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1992. Factors influencing the collection efficiency of estuarine fishes.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, E. A., P. E. Fell, M. A. Peck, J. A. Gieg, C. R. Guthke, andM. D. Newkirk. 1994. Gut contents of common mummichogs,Fundulus heteroclitus L., in a restored impounded marsh and in natural reference marshes.Estuaries 17:464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bildstein, K. L., B. Christy, andP. Decoursey. 1981. Behavior and behavioral ecology abstracts from Southeastern Coastal and Estuarine Birds: A Conference Workshop, Georgetown, South Carolina USA.Bird Behavior 4:50–53.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, J. M. andM. H. Khan. 1991. Depth as a factor in abundance and size of juvenile penaeid shrimps in the absence of estuaries and marshes.Marine Biology 109:103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain, R. L. andJ. M. Dean. 1976. Annual occurrence, abundance and diversity of fish in a South Carolina intertidal creek.Marine Biology 36:369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catrijsse, A., E. S. Makwaia, H. R. Dankwa, O. Hamerlynck, andM. A. Hemminga. 1994. Nekton communities of an intertidal creek of a European estuarine brackish marsh.Marine Ecology Progress Series 109:195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coull, B. C. andR. J. Feller. 1988. Site-to-site variability in abundance of meiobenthic copepods along a tidal gradient over 24 hours.Hydrobiologia 167/168:477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig, J. K. andL. B. Crowder. 2000. Factors influencing habitat selection in fishes with a review of marsh ecosystems, p. 241–266.In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger, (eds.). Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Deegan, L. A., J. E. Hughes, andR. A. Rountree. 2000. Salt marsh ecosystem support of marine transient species, p. 333–365.In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger, (eds.), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Gibson, R. N. 1973. The intertidal movements and distribution of young fish on a sandy beach with special reference to the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L.).Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 12:79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, R. N. 1987. Patterns of movement in intertidal fishes, p. 55–63.In G. Chelassi and M. Vannini (eds.), Behavioral Adaptation to Intertidal Life. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, R. N. 2003. Go with the flow: Tidal migrations of marine animals.Hydrobiologia 503:153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haertel-Borer, S. S., D. M. Allen, andR. F. Dame. 2004. Fishes and shrimps are significant sources of dissolved inorganic nutrients in intertidal salt marsh creeks.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 311:79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey, B. C. andA. J. Stewart. 1991. Fish size and habitat depth relationships in headwater streams.Oecologia 87:336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hettler, W. F. 1989. Nekton use of regularly-flooded saltmarsh cordgrass habitat in North Carolina, USA.Marine Ecology Progress Series 56:111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kneib, R. T. 1984. Patterns in the utilization of the intertidal saltmarsh by larvae and juveniles ofFundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus) andFundulus luciae (Baird).Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 83:41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kneib, R. T. 1991. Flume weir for quantitative collection of nekton from vegetated intertidal habitats.Marine Ecology Progress Series 75:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kneib, R. T. 1995. Behavior separates potential and realized effects of decapod crustaceans in salt marsh communities.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 193:239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kneib, R. T. 1997. Early life stages of resident nekton in intertidal marshes.Estuaries 20:214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kneib, R. T. 2000. Salt marsh ecoscapes and production transfers by estuarine nekton in the southeastern United States, p. 267–291.In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.) Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Kneib, R. T. 2003. Bioenergetic and landscape considerations for scaling expectations of nekton production from intertidal marshes.Marine Ecology Progress Series 264:279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kneib, R. T. andS. L. Wagner. 1994. Nekton use of vegetated marsh habitats at different stages of tidal inundation.Marine Ecology Progress Series 106:227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kushlan, J. A. 1981. Sampling characteristics of enclosure fish trans.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lorenz, J. J., C. C. McIvor, G. V. N. Powell, andP. C. Frederick. 1997. A drop net and removable walkway used to quantitatively sample fishes over wetland surfaces in the dwarf mangroves of the southern Everglades.Wetlands 17:346–359.Google Scholar
  25. McIvor, C. C. andW. E. Odum. 1986. The flume net: A quantitative method for sampling fishes and macrocrustaceans on tidal marsh surfaces.Estuaries 9:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McIvor, C. C. andW. E. Odum. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish assemblage.Ecology 69: 1341–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, J. M. andM. L. Dunn. 1980. Feeding strategies and patterns of movement in juvenile estuarine fishes, p. 437–448.In V. S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Perspectives. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Minello, T. J. andL. P. Rozas. 2002. Nekton in gulf coast wetlands: Fine-scale distributions, landscape patterns, and restoration implications.Ecological Applications 12:441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minello, T. J., R. J. Zimmerman, andR. Medina. 1994. The importance of edge for natant macrofauna in a created saltmarsh.Wetlands 14:184–198.Google Scholar
  30. Montgomery, J. L. M. andT. E. Targett. 1992. The nutritional role of seagrass in the diet of the omnivorous pinfishLagodon rhomboides (L.).Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 158:37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novakowski, K. I., R. Torres, L. R. Gardner, and G. Voulgaris. 2004. Geomorphic analysis of tidal creek networks.Water Resources Resarch 40, W05401, doi: 10.1029/2003WR002722.Google Scholar
  32. Ogburn-Matthews, M. V. andD. M. Allen. 1993. Interactions among some dominant estuarine nekton species.Estuaries 16: 840–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ogburn, M. V., D. M. Allen, andW. K. Michener. 1988. Fishes, shrimps, and crabs of the North Inlet Estuary, SC: A four-year seine and trawl survey. Baruch Institute Technical Report. No. 88-1. University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.Google Scholar
  34. Parrish, J. K. 1989. Layering with depth in a heterospecific fish aggregation.Environmental Biology of Fishes 26:79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paterson, A. W. andA. K. Whitfield. 2000. Do shallow-water habitats function as refugia for juvenile fishes?Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 51:359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson, G. W. andR. E. Turner. 1994. The value of salt marsh edge vs. interior as a habitat for fish and decapod crustaceans in a Louisiana tidal marsh.Estuaries 17:235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Posey, M. H. andA. H. Hines. 1991. Complex predator-prey interactions within an estuarine benthic community.Ecology 72: 2155–2169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Potthoff, M. T. andD. M. Allen. 2003. Site fidelity, home range, and tidal migrations of juvenile pinfish,Lagodon rhomboides, in salt marsh creeks.Environmental Biology of Fishes 67:231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Power, M. E. 1987. Predator avoidance by grazing fishes in temperate and tropical streams: Importance of stream depth and prey size, p. 333–351.In W. C. Kerfoot and A. Sih (eds.), Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England. Hanover, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, S. G., T. E. Targett, andS. B. Van Sant. 1984. Fishnursery use in Georgia salt-marsh estuaries: The influence of springtime freshwater conditions.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rountree, R. A. andK. W. Able. 1992. Foraging habits, growth, and temporal patterns of salt-marsh creek habitat use by young-of-the-year summer flounder in New Jersey.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:765–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rozas, L. P. 1992. Bottomless lift net for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal marshes.Marine Ecology Progress Series 89: 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rozas, L. P. andM. W. Lasalle. 1990. A comparison of the diets of gulf killifish,Fundulus grandis Baird and Girard, entering and leaving a Mississippi brackish marsh.Estuaries 13:332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rozas, L. P., C. C. McIvor, andW. E. Odum. 1988. Intertidal rivulets and creekbanks: Corridors between tidal creeks and marshes.Marine Ecology Progress Series 47:303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruiz, G. M., A. H. Hines, andM. H. Posey. 1993. Shallow water as a refuge habitat for fish and crustaceans in non-vegetated estuaries: An example from Chesapeake Bay.Marine Ecology Progress Series 99:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sogard, S. M. andK. W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and marsh creeks as habitats for epibenthic fishes and decapods.Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 33:501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stoner, A. W. 1980. Feeding ecology ofLagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae) variation and functional responses.Fisheries Bulletin 78:337–352.Google Scholar
  48. Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina.Fisheries Bulletin 77:339–357.Google Scholar
  49. Weinstein, M. P. andR. W. Davis. 1980. Collection efficiency of seine and rotenone samples from tidal creeks, Cape Fear River, North Carolina.Estuaries 3:98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weinstein, M. P., S. L. Weiss, andM. F. Walters. 1980. Multiple determinants of community structure in shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear River Estuary, North Carolina, USA.Marine Biology 58:227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wenner, C. 1992. Red drum: Natural history and fishing techniques in South Carolina. Educational Report No. 17, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, South Carolina.Google Scholar
  52. Wenner, C. andJ. Archambault. 1996. Spotted seatrout: Natural history and fishing techniques in South Carolina. Educational Report No. 18, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina.Google Scholar
  53. Wenner, E., H. R. Beatty, andL. Coen. 1996. A method for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal oyster reefs.Journal of Shellfish Research 15:769–775.Google Scholar
  54. West, J. M. andJ. B. Zedler. 2000. Marsh-creek connectivity: Fish use of a tidal salt marsh in southern California.Estuaries 23:699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wolfinger, R. D. 1999. Fitting nonlinear mixed models with the new NLMIXED procedure. SAS Users Group International Proceedings. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  56. Zimmerman, R. J., T. J. Minello, andJ. Zamora, Jr. 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat by brown shrimp,Penaeus aztecus, in a Galveston Bay salt marsh.Fishery Bulletin 82:325–336.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine and Coastal SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaGeorgetownSouth Carolina

Personalised recommendations