Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 237–251 | Cite as

The Role of Eelgrass in Marine Community Interactions and Ecosystem Services: Results from Ecosystem-Scale Food Web Models

  • Mark L. Plummer
  • Chris J. Harvey
  • Leif E. Anderson
  • Anne D. Guerry
  • Mary H. Ruckelshaus
Article

Abstract

Eelgrass beds provide valuable refuge, foraging, and spawning habitat for many marine species, including valued species such as Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), and Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister). We used dynamic simulations in a food web model of central Puget Sound, Washington, USA developed in the Ecopath with Ecosim software, to examine how the marine community may respond to changes in coverage of native eelgrass (Zostera marina), and how these modeled responses can be assessed using an ecosystem services framework, expressing these services with economic currencies in some cases and biological proxies in others. Increased eelgrass coverage was most associated with increases in commercial and recreational fishing with some small decreases in one non-market activity, bird watching. When we considered ecosystem service categories that are aggregations of individual groups of species, we saw little evidence of strong tradeoffs among marine resources; that is, increasing eelgrass coverage was essentially either positive or neutral for all services we examined, although we did not examine terrestrial activities (for example, land use) that affect eelgrass coverage. Within particular service categories, however, we found cases where the responses to changes in eelgrass of individual groups of species that provide the same type of ecosystem service differed both in the magnitude and in the direction of change. This emphasizes the care that should be taken in combining multiple examples of a particular type of ecosystem service into an aggregate measure of that service.

Keywords

ecosystem services habitat restoration eelgrass restoration ecosystem models food webs economics 

References

  1. Anielski M, Wilson S. 2009. Counting Canada’s natural capital: assessing the real value of Canada’s boreal ecosystems. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Boreal Initiative and Pembina Institute. p 78.Google Scholar
  2. Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC, Townsend M. 2008. Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Mar Pollut Bull 56:386–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockstael NE, Freeman AMIII, Kopp RJ, Portney PR, Smith VK. 2000. On measuring economic values for nature. Environ Sci Technol 34:1384–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brander K. 2010. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and marine capture fisheries production. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:416–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan K, Ruckelshaus M. 2010. Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services. F1000 Biol Rep 2:54–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen V, Walters CJ. 2004. Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities, and limitations. Ecol Model 172:109–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife. Title 50, Pt. 17.11, 2012 ed.Google Scholar
  9. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Rudolf, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das S, Vincent JR. 2009. Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7357–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dore JE, Lukas R, Sadler DW, Church MJ, Karl DM. 2009. Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:12235–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1:488–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Espinosa-Romero MJ, Gregr EJ, Walters C, Christensen V, Chan KMA. 2011. Representing mediating effects and species reintroductions in Ecopath with Ecosim. Ecol Model 222:1569–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Essington T, Klinger T, Conway-Cranos T, Buchanan J, James A, Kershner J, Logan I, West J. 2012. The biophysical condition of Puget Sound: biology. Puget Sound Partnership, Tacoma, Washington. http://www.eopugetsound.org/science-review/biophysical-condition-puget-sound-biology. Accessed 8 August 2012.
  15. Foley M, Halpern B, Micheli F, Armsby M, Caldwell M, Crain C, Prahler E, Rohr N, Sivas D, Beck M, Carr M, Crowder L, Duffy JE, Hacker S, McLeod K, Peterson C, Regan H, Ruckelshaus M, Sandifer P, Steneck R. 2010. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 5:955–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman AMIII. 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. p 491p.Google Scholar
  17. Fresh KL. 2006. Juvenile Pacific salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-06. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. 28 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Fulton EA, Smith ADM, Johnson CR. 2003. Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 253:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaeckle, JL, Dowty P, Berry H, Ferrier L. 2009. Puget Sound Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Project: 2008 Monitoring Report, Nearshore Habitat Program. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 63 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Guerry A, Plummer M, Ruckelshaus M, Harvey C. 2011. Ecosystem service assessments for marine conservation. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G, Polasky S, Eds. Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, Bernhardt JR, Guannel G, Kim CK, Marsik M, Papenfus M, Toft JE, Verutes G, Wood SA, Beck M, Chan F, Chan KMA, Gelfenbaum G, Gold BD, Halpern BS, Labiosa WB, Lester SE, Levin PS, McField M, Pinsky ML, Plummer M, Polasky S, Ruggiero P, Sutherland DA, Tallis H, Day A, Spencer J. 2012. Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustafson RG, Lenarz WH, McCain BB, Schmitt CC, Grant WS, Builder TL, Methot RD. 2000. Status review of Pacific hake, Pacific cod, and walleye pollock from Puget Sound. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-44, Seattle, Washington. 275 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey CJ, Bartz KK, Davies J, Francis TB, Good TP, Guerry AD, Hanson B, Holsman KK, Miller J, Plummer ML, Reum JCP, Rhodes LD, Rice CA, Samhouri JF, Williams GD, Yoder N, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus MH. 2010. A mass-balance model for evaluating food web structure and community-scale indicators in the central basin of Puget Sound. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-106, Seattle, Washington. 180 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Harvey CJ, Good TP, Pearson SF. 2012a. Top-down influence of resident and overwintering bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in a model marine ecosystem. Can J Zool 90:903–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey CJ, Williams GD, Levin PS. 2012b. Food web structure and trophic control in central Puget Sound. Estuaries Coasts 35:821–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huesemann MH, Hausmann TS, Fortman TJ, Thom RM, Cullinan V. 2009. In situ phytoremediation of PAH- and PCB-contaminated marine sediments with eelgrass (Zostera marina). Ecol Eng 35:1395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin SR, Lubchenco J. 2008. Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. Bioscience 58:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lian CE. 2012. West Coast open access groundfish and salmon troller survey: Protocol and results for 2005 and 2006. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-116, Seattle, Washington. 52 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Lubchenco J, Sutley N. 2010. Proposed U.S. policy for ocean, coast, and Great Lakes stewardship. Science 328:1485–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McConnell KE, Bockstael NE. 2005. Valuing the environment as a factor of production. In: Mäler K-G, Vincent JR, Eds. Handbook of environmental economics, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p 621–69.Google Scholar
  31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 68 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Mumford TF. 2007. Kelp and eelgrass in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-05. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. 34 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Murawski SA, Steele J, Taylor P, Fogarty MJ, Sissenwine MP, Ford M, Suchman C. 2009. Why compare marine ecosystems? ICES J Mar Sci 67:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 278 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Penttila D. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report 2007-03. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. 23 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Peterson C, Lubchenco J. 1997. Marine ecosystem services. In: Daily G, Ed. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. p 177–94.Google Scholar
  37. Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change. Arlington (VA): Pew Oceans Commission. 40 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Plagányi ÉE. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 477. Rome: U.N. Fisheries and Agriculture Organization. 108 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Plagányi ÉE, Butterworth DS. 2004. A critical look at the potential of Ecopath with Ecosim to assist in practical fisheries management. Afr J Mar Sci 26:261–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Postel S, Carpenter S. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In: Daily G, Ed. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. p 195–214.Google Scholar
  41. Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). 2008. Puget Sound Action Agenda: protecting and restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem by 2020. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Partnership. 197 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). 2010. Performance Management, Action Item 1: Recovery Targets for Eelgrass. Puget Sound Partnership, Olympia, Washington. http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/LC2011/021711/03B_1511Performance_management_Target_Setting-eelgrass.pdf. Accessed 21 August 2012.
  43. Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). 2011. Puget Sound ecosystem recovery targets. http://www.psp.wa.gov/action_agenda_2011_recovery_targets.php. Accessed 26 July 2011.
  44. Ruckelshaus MH, McClure MM. 2007. Sound science: synthesizing ecological and socioeconomic information about the Puget Sound ecosystem. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington. 93 pp.Google Scholar
  45. Semmens BX. 2008. Acoustically derived fine-scale behaviors of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) associated with intertidal habitats in an estuary. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:2053–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shvidenko A, Barber C, Persson R, Gonzales P, Hassoa R, Lakyda P, McCallum I, Milsson S, Pulhin J, van Rosenburg B, Scholes B. 2005. Forest and woodland systems. Chapter 21, millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp 585–621.Google Scholar
  47. Simenstad CA, Fresh KL. 1995. Influence of intertidal aquaculture on benthic communities in Pacific Northwest estuaries—scales of disturbance. Estuaries 18:43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vörösmarty C, Leveque C, Revenga C, Bos R, Caudill C, Chilton J, Douglas E, Meybeck M, Prager D, Balvanera P, Barker S, Maas M, Nilsson C, Oki T, Reidy C. 2005. Freshwater ecosystem services. Chapter 7, millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp 213–55.Google Scholar
  49. Wallmo K, Lew DK. 2011. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: an application of stated preference choice experiments. J Environ Manage 92:1793–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Washington Birder. 2011. Birds in Washington State: a county comparison. http://www.wabirder.com/docs/biws_1211.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark L. Plummer
    • 1
  • Chris J. Harvey
    • 1
  • Leif E. Anderson
    • 3
  • Anne D. Guerry
    • 2
  • Mary H. Ruckelshaus
    • 2
  1. 1.Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Natural Capital ProjectStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations