Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 10, pp 2307–2321 | Cite as

Temporal variability in potential connectivity of Vallisneria americana in the Chesapeake Bay

  • Michael W. Lloyd
  • Paul A. Widmeyer
  • Maile C. Neel
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) performs water quality enhancing functions that are critical to the overall health of estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay. However, eutrophication and sedimentation have decimated the Bay’s SAV population to a fraction of its historical coverage. Understanding the spatial distribution of and connectedness among patches is important for assessing the dynamics and health of the remaining SAV population.

Objectives

We seek to explore the distribution of SAV patches and patterns of potential connectivity in the Chesapeake Bay through time.

Methods

We assess critical distances, from complete patch isolation to connection of all patches, in a merged composite coverage map that represents the sum of all probable Vallisneria americana containing patches between 1984 and 2010 and in coverage maps for individual years within that timeframe for which complete survey data are available.

Results

We have three key findings: First, the amount of SAV coverage in any given year is much smaller than the total recently occupied acreage. Second, the vast majority of patches of SAV that are within the tolerances of V. americana are ephemeral, being observed in only 1 or 2 years out of 26 years. Third, this high patch turnover results in highly variable connectivity from year to year, dependent on dispersal distance and patch arrangement.

Conclusions

Most of the connectivity thresholds are beyond reasonable dispersal distances for V. americana. If the high turnover in habitat occupancy is due to marginal water quality, relatively small improvements could greatly increase V. americana growth and persistence.

Keywords

Graph theory Submersed aquatic vegetation Fragmentation 

References

  1. Adamack AT, Gruber B (2014) PopGenReport: simplifying basic population genetic analyses in R. Methods Ecol Evol 5(4):384–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baudry J, Merriam G (1988) Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. In: Schreiber KF (ed) Connectivity in landscape ecology. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten, Münster, pp 23–28Google Scholar
  3. Bayley S, Stotts VD, Springer PF, Steenis J (1978) Changes in submerged aquatic macrophyte populations at the head of Chesapeake Bay, 1958–1975. Estuaries 1(3):171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkovića B, Cabaçoa S, Barriob JM, Santosa R, Serrãoa EA, Albertoc F (2014) Extending the life history of a clonal aquatic plant: dispersal potential of sexual and asexual propagules of Zostera noltii. Aquat Bot 113:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boustany RG, Thomas CM, Rebecca FM (2010) Effects of salinity and light on biomass and growth of Vallisneria americana from Lower St. Johns River, FL, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 18(2):203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks CP (2003) A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102(2):433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brush GS, Davis FW (1984) Stratigraphic evidence of human disturbance in an estuary. Quat Res 22:91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manag 59(4):265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2(10):529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter V, Rybicki NB, Landwehr JM, Turtora M (1994) Role of weather and water-quality in population-dynamics of submersed macrophytes in the tidal Potomac River. Estuaries 17(2):417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chetkiewicz CLB, Clair CCS, Boyce MS (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho HJ, Poirrier MA (2005) Seasonal growth and reproduction of Ruppia maritima L. s.l. in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, USA. Aquat Bot 81(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cristofor S, Vadineanu A, Sarbu A, Postolache C, Dobre R, Adamescu M (2003) Long-term changes of submerged macrophytes in the lower Danube wetland system. Hydrobiologia 506(1–3):625–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demars BOL, Harper DM (2005) Distribution of aquatic vascular plants in lowland rivers: separating the effects of local environmental conditions, longitudinal connectivity and river basin isolation. Freshw Biol 50(3):418–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Moore KA, Stevenson JC, Carter V, Kollar S, Bergstrom PW, Batiuk RA (1993) Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43:86–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doering PH, Chamberlain RH, McMunigal JM (2001) Effects of simulated saltwater intrusions on the growth and survival of wild celery, Vallisneria americana, from the Caloosahatchee estuary (south Florida). Estuaries 24(6A):894–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutton HJ, Juday C (1944) Chromatic adaptation in relation to color and depth distribution of freshwater phytoplankton and large aquatic plants. Ecology 25(3):273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ESRI (2016) ArcGIS desktop. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl Manag 61(3):603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Neel MC (2007) Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landscape Ecol 22(9):1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Figuerola J, Green AJ, Santamaria L (2003) Passive internal transport of aquatic organisms by waterfowl in Donana, south-west Spain. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12(5):427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. French GT, Moore KA (2003) Interactive effects of light and salinity stress on the growth, reproduction, and photosynthetic capabilities of Vallisneria americana (wild celery). Estuaries 26(5):1255–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144(1):44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396(6706):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harwell MC, Orth RJ (2002) Long-distance dispersal potential in a marine macrophyte. Ecology 83(12):3319–3330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Helm A, Hanski I, Partel M (2006) Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 9(1):72–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Higgins SI, Nathan R, Cain ML (2003) Are long-distance dispersal events in plants usually caused by nonstandard means of dispersal? Ecology 84(8):1945–1956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hochbaum HA (1955) Travels and traditions of waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudon C, Lalonde S, Gagnon P (2000) Ranking the effects of site exposure, plant growth form, water depth, and transparency on aquatic plant biomass. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 15(2):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaul RB (1978) Morphology of germination and establishment of aquatic seedlings in Alismataceae and Hydrocharitaceae. Aquat Bot 5(2):139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller I, Largiader CR (2003) Recent habitat fragmentation caused by major roads leads to reduction of gene flow and loss of genetic variability in ground beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B 270(1513):417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kemp WM, Boynton WR, Stevenson JC, Twilley RR, Means JC (1983) The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: summary of results concerning possible causes. Mar Tech Soc J 17:78–89Google Scholar
  37. Kendrick GA, Waycott M, Carruthers TJB, Cambridge ML, Hovey R, Krauss SL, Lavery PS, Les DH, Lowe RJ, Vidal OMI, Ooi JLS, Orth RJ, Rivers DO, Ruiz-Montoya L, Sinclair EA, Statton J, van Dijk JK, Verduin JJ (2012) The central role of dispersal in the maintenance and persistence of seagrass populations. Bioscience 62:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korschgen C, Green W (1988) American wild celery (Vallisneria americana): ecological considerations for restoration. Technical report 19 US Fish and Wildlife Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  40. Lirman D, Deangelo G, Serafy J, Hazra A, Smith Hazra D, Herlan J, Luo J, Bellmund S, Clausing R (2008) Seasonal changes in the abundance and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in a highly managed coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 596:105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Madsen JD, Chambers PA, James WF, Koch EW, Westlake DF (2001) The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 444:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McFarland DG, Shafer DJ (2008) Factors influencing reproduction in American wild celery: a synthesis. J Aquat Plant Manag 46:129–144Google Scholar
  43. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed 22 April 2013
  44. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60(8):1551–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Merriam G (1984) Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt J, Agger P (eds) Proceedings first international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. Theme I, Roskilde 1984. International Association for Landscape Ecology, pp 5–15Google Scholar
  46. Merriam G (1991) Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. In: Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping North, pp 133–142Google Scholar
  47. Moore KA (2004) Influence of seagrasses on water quality in shallow regions of the lower Chesapeake Bay. J Coast Res 45:162–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moore KA, Shields EC, Jarvis JC (2010) The role of habitat and herbivory on the restoration of tidal freshwater submerged aquatic vegetation populations. Restor Ecol 18(4):596–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moore KA, Wilcox DJ, Orth RJ (2000) Analysis of the abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23(1):115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’hare MT, Gunn IDM, Chapman DS, Dudley BJ, Purse BV (2012) Impacts of space, local environment and habitat connectivity on macrophyte communities in conservation lakes. Divers Distrib 18(6):603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Orth RJ, Moore KA (1983) Chesapeake Bay—an unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222(4619):51–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Orth RJ, Moore KA, Marion SR, Wilcox DJ, Parrish DB (2012) Seed addition facilitates eelgrass recovery in a coastal bay system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 448:177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Orth RJ, Wilcox DJ, Whiting JR, Kenne AK, Nagey LS, Smith ER (2016) 2015 SAV report executive summary. Preliminary executive summary. http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav15/exec_summary.html
  54. Orth RJ, Wilcox DJ, Whiting JR, Nagey LS, Owens AL, Kenne AK (2008) 2007 distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. VIMS special scientific report number 151. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay program, Annapolis. http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav07/index.html
  55. Orth RJ, Wilcox DJ, Whiting JR, Nagey LS, Owens AL, Kenne AK (2010) 2009 distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. VIMS special scientific report number 152. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay program, Annapolis. http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav09/index.html
  56. Orth RJ, Williams MR, Marion SR et al (2010b) Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuar Coast 33(5):1144–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(52):20770–20775CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132(5):652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  61. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158(1):87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rozas LP, Odum WE (1987) Fish and macrocrustacean use of submerged plant beds in tidal fresh-water marsh creeks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 38:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rybicki NB, Carter V (2002) Light and temperature effects on the growth of wild celery and Hydrilla. J Aquat Plant Manag 40:92–99Google Scholar
  64. Rybicki NB, Landwehr JM (2007) Long-term changes in abundance and diversity of macrophyte and waterfowl populations in an estuary with exotic macrophytes and improving water quality. Limnol Oceanogr 52(3):1195–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Santamaria L, Klaassen M (2002) Waterbird-mediated dispersal of aquatic organisms: an introduction. Acta Oecol 23(3):115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Santos RO, Lirman D, Serafy JE (2011) Quantifying freshwater-induced fragmentation of submerged aquatic vegetation communities using a multi-scale landscape ecology approach. Mar Ecol 427:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saura S, Estreguilb C, Moutonb C, Rodriguez-Freireb M (2011) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Indic 11:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83(2–3):91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537Google Scholar
  70. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Soft 24:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sheldon RB, Boylen CW (1977) Maximum depth inhabited by aquatic vascular plants. Am Midl Nat 97(1):248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stevenson JC, Confer NM (1978) Summary of available information on Chesapeake Bay submerged vegetation. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washinton, pp 283–335Google Scholar
  73. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A, Danielson BJ, Brinkerhoff J, Damschen EI, Townsend P (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:12923–12926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Thrush SF, Halliday J, Hewitt JE, Lohrer AM (2008) The effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, and community homogenization on resilience in estuaries. Ecol Appl 18(1):12–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95(1):152–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Titus JE (1983) Submersed macrophyte vegetation and depth distribution in Chenango Lake, New York. Bull Torrey Bot Club 110(2):176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Twilley RR, Barko JW (1990) The growth of submersed macrophytes under experimental salinity and light conditions. Estuaries 13(3):311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Urban DL (2003) LandGraphs: a package for graph-theoretic analyses of landscapes. 1.0 beta edn. Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  81. Urban DL (2005) Modeling ecological processes across scales. Ecology 86(8):1996–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5):1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load for nitrogen, phosphorus and sedimen. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  84. van der Nat D, Tockner K, Edwards PJ, Ward JV, Gurnell AM (2003) Habitat change in braided flood plains (Tagliamento, NE-Italy). Freshw Biol 48(10):1799–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. West BE, Engelhardt KAM, Neel MC (2013) Genetic rescue versus outbreeding depression in Vallisneria americana: implications for mixing seed sources for restoration. Biol Conserv 167:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wiegand T, Revilla E, Moloney KA (2005) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conserv Biol 19(1):108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zetterberg A, Mortberg UM, Balfors B (2010) Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc Urban Plan 95(4):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael W. Lloyd
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul A. Widmeyer
    • 1
    • 3
  • Maile C. Neel
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Plant Science & Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Entomology, Smithsonian InstitutionNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations