Environmental Management

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 163–178

Toward Reversal of Eutrophic Conditions in a Subtropical Estuary: Water Quality and Seagrass Response to Nitrogen Loading Reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA

PROFILE

Abstract

Coastal waters have been significantly influenced by increased inputs of nutrients that have accompanied population growth in adjacent drainage basins. In Tampa Bay, Florida, USA, the population has quadrupled since 1950. By the late 1970s, eutrophic conditions including phytoplankton and macroalgal blooms and seagrass losses were evident. The focus of improving Tampa Bay is centered on obtaining sufficient water quality necessary for restoring seagrass habitat, estimated to have been 16,400 ha in 1950 but reduced to 8800 ha by 1982. To address these problems, targets for nutrient load reductions along with seagrass restoration goals were developed and actions were implemented to reach adopted targets. Empirical regression models were developed to determine relationships between chlorophyll a concentrations and light attenuation adequate for sustainable seagrass growth. Additional empirical relationships between nitrogen loading and chlorophyll a concentrations were developed to determine how Tampa Bay responds to changes in loads. Data show that when nitrogen load reduction and chlorophyll a targets are met, seagrass cover increases. After nitrogen load reductions and maintenance of chlorophyll a at target levels, seagrass acreage has increased 25% since 1982, although more than 5000 ha of seagrass still require recovery. The cooperation of scientists, managers, and decision makers participating in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s Nitrogen Management Strategy allows the Tampa Bay estuary to continue to show progress towards reversing many of the problems that once plagued its waters. These results also highlight the importance of a multi-entity watershed management process in maintaining progress towards science-based natural resource goals.

Keywords

Eutrophication Nutrient management Seagrass Tampa Bay 

Literature Cited

  1. Andersson L., L. Rydberg. 1988. Trends in nutrient and oxygen conditions within the Kattegat: Effects of local nutrient supply. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 26:559–579Google Scholar
  2. Boesch D. F. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for science in reducing nutrient over-enrichment of coastal ecosystems. Estuaries 25:886–900Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, G. R., T. L. Dix, and L. J. Doyle. 1993. Groundwater/surface water interactions in Tampa Bay and implications for nutrient fluxes. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #06-93. St. Petersburg, Florida, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Cloern J. E. 2001. Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 210:223–253Google Scholar
  5. Cornwell J. C., D. J. Conley, M. Owens, J. C. Stevenson. 1996. A sediment chronology of the eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19:488–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawes, C. J., R. C. Phillips, and G. Morrison. 2004. Seagrass communities of the Gulf Coast of Florida: Status and ecology. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, Florida, iv + 74 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Deegan L. A. 2002. Lessons learned: the effects of nutrient enrichment on the support of nekton by seagrass and salt marsh ecosystems. Estuaries 25:727–742Google Scholar
  8. Dennison W. C., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, J. C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. W. Bergstrom, R. A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submerged aquatic vegetation. BioScience 43:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon L. K. 1999. Establishing light requirements for the seagrass Thalassia testudinum: An example for Tampa Bay, Florida. In S. A. Bortone (ed.), Seagrasses: Monitoring, ecology, physiology and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Pages 9–31Google Scholar
  10. Gallegos C. L. 2001. Calculating optical water quality targets to restore and protect submersed aquatic vegetation: Overcoming problems in partitioning the diffuse attenuation coefficient for photosynthetically active radiation. Estuaries 24:381–397Google Scholar
  11. Gallegos C. L., W. J. Kenworthy. 1996. Seagrass depth limits in the Indian River Lagoon (Florida, U.S.A.): Application of an optical water quality model. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 42:267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, C. R. 1989. Circulation of Tampa and Sarasota Bays. Pages 49–65 in E. D. Estevez (eds.), Tampa and Sarasota Bays: Issues, resources, status and management. NOAA estuary-of-the-month seminar series no. 11. Proceedings of a seminary held December 10, 1987, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Greening, H. 2001. Nutrient management and seagrass restoration in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. InterCoast Network: 40(Fall 2001):6–7, 38Google Scholar
  14. Greening H., B. D. DeGrove. 2001. Implementing a voluntary, nonregulatory approach to nitrogen management in Tampa Bay, FL: A public/private partnership. The Scientific World 1:378–383Google Scholar
  15. Greening H., C. Elfring. 2002. Local, state, regional and federal roles in coastal nutrient management. Estuaries 25:838–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffen, L. and H. Greening. 2004. Factors Influencing Seagrass Recovery in Feather Sound, Tampa Bay, Florida. Final Report of the Feather Sound Seagrass Recovery Workgroup. Prepared for the Pinellas County Environmental Foundation. Including technical appendices on CD. 29 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Howarth R. W., A. Sharpley, D. Walker. 2002. Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in the United States: Implications for achieving coastal water quality goals. Estuaries 25:656–676Google Scholar
  18. Janicki, A. J., R. Pribble, H. Zarbock, S. Janicki, and M. Winowitch. 2001a. Model-based estimates of total nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay: Current conditions and updated 2010 conditions. Technical report #08-01 of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, Florida, 83 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Janicki, A. J., R. Pribble, and M. Winowitch. 2001b. Estimation of the spatial and temporal nature of hypoxia in Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical publication #09-01 of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, Florida, 145 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Janicki, A. J., and D. L. Wade. 1996. Estimating critical nitrogen loads for the Tampa Bay estuary: An empirically based approach to setting management targets. Technical publication #06-96 of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, Florida, 60 pp. plus appendicesGoogle Scholar
  21. Janicki, A. J., D. L. Wade, and J. R. Pribble. 2000. Developing and establishing a process to track the status of chlorophyll a concentrations and light attenuation to support seagrass restoration goals in Tampa Bay. Technical publication #04-00 of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida. 70 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Janicki, A. J., D. L. Wade, and J. R. Pribble. 2005. Tracking chlorophyll-a and light attenuation in Tampa Bay: Application to 2004 data. Technical report #01-05 of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida, 18 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Jansson B. O., K. Dahlberg. 1999. The environmental status of the Baltic Sea in the 1940’s, today and in the future. Ambio 28:312–319Google Scholar
  24. Johansson J. O. R. 1991. Long-term trends in nitrogen loading, water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. In S. F. Treat, and P. A. Clark (eds.), Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, Florida. Pages 157–176Google Scholar
  25. Johansson J. O. R., H. S. Greening. 2000. Seagrass restoration in Tampa Bay: A resource-based approach to estuarine management. In S. A. Bortone (ed.), Seagrasses: Monitoring, ecology, physiology, and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Pages 279–294Google Scholar
  26. Johansson, J. O. R., and A. P. Squires. 1989. Surface sediments and their relationship to water quality in Hillsborough Bay, a highly impacted subdivision of Tampa Bay. Pages 129–143 in E. D. Estevez (ed.), Tampa and Sarasota Bays: Issues, resources, status and management. NOAA estuary-of-the-month seminar series no. 11. Proceedings of a seminary held December 10, 1987, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenworthy W. J., M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Light requirements of seagrasses Haladule wrightii and Syringodium filiforme derived from the relationship between diffuse light attenuation and maximum depth distribution. Estuaries 19:740–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis R. R., M. J. Durako, M. D. Moffler, R. C. Phillips. 1985. Seagrass meadows of Tampa Bay: a review. In Treat S. F., J. L. Simon, R. R. Lewis, R. L. Whitman Jr. (eds.). Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium. Bellweather Press, Edina, Maine. Pages 210–246Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. 2000. Clean coastal waters: Understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 405 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Nixon S. W. 1995. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41:199–219Google Scholar
  31. Paerl H. W., J. Dyble, P. H. Moisander, R. T. Noble, M. F. Piehler, J. L. Pinckney, T. F. Steppe, L. Twomey, L. M. Valdes. 2003. Microbial indicators of aquatic ecosystem change: Current applications to eutrophication studies. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 46:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poe A., K. Hackett, S. Janicki, R. Pribble, and A. Janicki. 2005. Estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida: 1999–2003. Tampa Bay estuary program technical report #07-04. St. Petersburg, Florida. 374 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollman, C. 2005. Export of atmospherically derived nitrogen in the Tampa Bay watershed. Pages 127–136 in Treat S.F. (ed.), Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, BASIS4: 27–30 October 2003, St. Petersburg, Florida, 295 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Poor H., R. Pribble, H. Greening. 2001. Direct wet and dry deposition of ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium and nitrate for the Tampa Bay Estuary, FL, USA. Atmospheric Environment 35:3947–3955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pribble, R. J., A. J. Janicki, H. Zarbock, S. Janicki, and M. Winowitch. 2001. Estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida: 1995–1998. Technical publication #05-01 of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida, 227 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Rabalais N. N., R. E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, W. J. Wisenman Jr., B. K. Senupta. 1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries 19:386–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Santos S. L., J. L. Simon. 1980. Marine soft-bottom community establishment following annual defaunation: larval or adult recruitment? Marine Ecology Progress Series 2:235–241Google Scholar
  38. Seitzinger S. P., C. Kroeze, A. F. Bouman, N. Caraco, F. Dentener, R. V. Styles. 2002. Global patterns of dissolved inorganic and particulate nitrogen inputs to coastal systems: recent conditions and future projections. Estuaries 25:640–655Google Scholar
  39. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP). 1996. Charting the course: The comprehensive conservation and management plan for Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida. 263 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1986. Habitat restoration study for the Tampa Bay region. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, Florida, 84 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Tampa Bay water quality action plan database, available from TBEP at http://www.tbep.org(Accessed April 3, 2006)
  42. Tomasko D. A. 2002. Status and trends of seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay, with reference to other Southwest Florida estuaries. In Greening H. S. (ed.), Seagrass management, it’s not just nutrients! Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida. Pages 11–20Google Scholar
  43. Tomasko D. A., D. J. Dawes, M. O. Hall. 1996. The effects of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Estuaries 19:448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomasko D. A., C. A. Corbett, H. S. Greening, G. E. Raulerson. 2005. Spatial and temporal variations in seagrass coverage in Southwest Florida: Assessing the relative effects of anthropogenic nutrient load reductions and rainfall in four contiguous estuaries. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:797–805Google Scholar
  45. Wade, D. L., and A. J. Janicki. 1993. Physical impacts to habitats in Tampa Bay. Technical publication #03-93 of the Tampa Bay national estuary program. St. Petersburg, Florida, 134 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang P. F., J. Martin, G. Morrison. 1999. Water quality and eutrophication in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zarbock, H. W., and A. J. Janicki. 1997. Guidelines for calculating nitrogen load reduction credits. Technical report #02-97 of the Tampa Bay national estuary program. St. Petersburg, Florida, 16 pp. plus appendicesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tampa Bay Estuary ProgramSt. PetersburgUSA
  2. 2.Janicki Environmental, Inc.St. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations