Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1208–1220 | Cite as

Seston Removal by Natural and Constructed Intertidal Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Reefs: A Comparison with Previous Laboratory Studies, and the Value of in situ Methods

  • Raymond E. Grizzle
  • Jennifer K. Greene
  • Loren D. Coen
Article

Abstract

An important ecological role ascribed to oysters is the transfer of materials from the water column to the benthos as they feed on suspended particles (seston). This ecosystem service has been often touted as a major reason for many oyster restoration efforts, but empirical characterization and quantification of seston removal rates in the field have been lacking. Changes in chlorophyll a (chl a) concentrations in the water column were measured in May 2005 and June 2006 in South Carolina using in situ fluorometry and laboratory analysis of pumped water samples taken upstream and downstream as water flowed over natural and constructed intertidal oyster reefs. Both methods gave similar results overall, but with wide variability within individual reef datasets. In situ fluorometer data logged at 10 to 30-s intervals for up to 1.3 h over eight different reefs (three natural and five constructed) showed total removal (or uptake) expressed as % removal of chl a ranging from −9.8% to 27.9%, with a mean of 12.9%. Our data indicate that restored shellfish reefs should provide water-quality improvements soon after construction, and the overall impact is probably determined by the size and density of the resident filter feeder populations relative to water flow characteristics over the reef. The measured population-level chl a removal was converted to mean individual clearance rates to allow comparison with previous laboratory studies. Although direct comparisons could not be made due to the small size of oysters on the study reefs (mean shell height, 36.1 mm), our calculated rates (mean, 1.21 L h−1) were similar to published laboratory measured rates for oysters of this size. However, the wide variability in measured removal by the oyster reefs suggests that individual oyster feeding rates in nature may be much more variable than in the laboratory. The proliferation of ecosystem-level models that simulate the impacts of bivalves on water quality based only on laboratory-feeding measurements underscores the importance of further research aimed at determining ecologically realistic feeding rates for oysters in the field. Because in situ methods provide many replicate measurements quickly, they represent a potentially powerful tool for quantifying the effects of oyster reefs, including all suspension-feeding taxa present, on water quality.

Keywords

Oyster reef Bivalve Water quality Fluorometry Ecosystem services 

References

  1. Ackerman, J.D., M.R. Loewen, and P.F. Hamblin. 2001. Benthic–Pelagic coupling over a zebra mussel reef in western Lake Erie. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 892–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpine, A.E., and J.E. Cloern. 1992. Trophic interactions and direct physical effects control phytoplankton biomass and production in an estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 946–955.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, W.D., and G.M. Yianopoulos. 2003. Final Report to NOAA-RC, Intertidal oyster and clam bed restoration in the ACE Basin, South Carolina using recycled oyster shell, hatchery raised clam seed, and other cultch material, Project Period, July 2000–September 2002, 18pp.Google Scholar
  4. Arar, E.J. 1997. Method 447.0, Determination of chlorophylls a and b and identification of other pigments of interest in marine and freshwater algae using high performance liquid chromatography with visible wavelength detection. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 20 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Brumbaugh, R.D., L.A. Sorabella, C.O. Garcia, W.J. Goldsborough, and J.A. Wesson. 2000. Making a case for community-based oyster restoration: an example from Hampton Roads, Virginia, U.S.A. Journal of Shellfish Research 19: 467–472.Google Scholar
  6. Cerco, C.F., and M.R. Noel. 2007. Can oyster restoration reverse cultural euthrophicaiton in Chesapeake Bay? Estuaries and Coasts 30: 331–343.Google Scholar
  7. Coen, L.D., and M. Bolton-Warberg. 2005. An examination of the impacts of various harvesting/ management strategies and boat wakes on oyster bed condition, recovery rates, shoreline erosion and restoration. A Marine Recreational Fisheries Stamp Program Final Report, 96 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Coen, L.D., and M.W. Luckenbach. 2000. Developing success criteria and goals for evaluating oyster reef restoration: ecological function or resource exploitation? Ecological Engineering 15: 323–343. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00084-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coen, L.D., M. Judge, C. Moncreiff, and K. Hammerstrom. 2000. Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) mariculture in U.S. waters: evaluating the effects of large-scale field growout practices on clam growth, nutrition and inshore estuarine creek communities. Final Project Report to Saltonstall-Kennedy, NMFS. 38 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Coen, L.D., M. Bolton-Warberg, Y. Bobo, D. Richardson, A.H. Ringwood, and G.I. Scott. 2004. Oyster Beds. In A baseline assessment of environmental and biological conditions in the May River, Beaufort County, South Carolina: final report submitted to the Town of Bluffton, eds. R.F. Van Dolah, D.M. Sanger, and A.B. Filipowicz, eds. 127–147.Google Scholar
  11. Coen, L.D., M. Bolton-Warberg, and J.A. Stephen. 2006. An examination of oyster reefs as biologically-critical estuarine ecosystems. Final Report, Grant R/ER-10, Submitted to the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, 214pp. plus appendices.Google Scholar
  12. Coen, L.D., R.D. Brumbaugh, D. Bushek, R. Grizzle, M.W. Luckenbach, M.H. Posey, S.P. Powers, and G. Tolley. 2007. AS WE SEE IT. A broader view of ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology. Progress Series 341: 303–307. doi:10.3354/meps341299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coughlan, J. 1969. The estimation of filtering rate from the clearance of suspensions. Marine Biology 2: 356–368. doi:10.1007/BF00355716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cranford, P.J. 2001. Evaluating the ‘reliability’ of filtration rate measurements in bivalves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215: 303–305. doi:10.3354/meps215303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cressman, K.A., M.H. Posey, M.A. Mallin, L.A. Leonard, and T.D. Alphin. 2003. Effects of oyster reefs on water quality in a tidal creek estuary. Journal of Shellfish Research 22: 753–762.Google Scholar
  16. Dame, R. 1996. Ecology of marine bivalves: an ecosystem approach. 254. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
  17. Dame, R., and S. Libes. 1993. Oyster reefs and nutrient retention in tidal creeks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 171: 251–258. doi:10.1016/0022-0981(93)90007-B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dame, R.F., T.G. Wolaver, and S.M. Libes. 1985. The summer uptake and release of nitrogen by an intertidal oyster reef. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 19: 265–268. doi:10.1016/0077-7579(85)90032-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dame, R., N. Dankers, T. Prins, H. Jongma, and A. Smaal. 1991. The influence of mussel beds on nutrients in the Western Wadden Sea and Eastern Scheldt Estuaries. Estuaries 14: 130–138. doi:10.2307/1351686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dame, R.F., J.D. Spurrier, and R.G. Zingmark. 1992. In situ metabolism of an oyster reef. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 164: 147–159. doi:10.1016/0022-0981(92)90171-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dame, R., D. Bushek, and T. Prins. 2001. The role of suspension feeders as ecosystem transformers in shallow coastal environments. In The ecology of sedimentary coasts, ed. K. Reise, 11–37. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. French McCay, D.P., C.H. Peterson, J.T. DeAlteris, and J. Catena. 2003. Restoration that targets function as opposed to structure: replacing lost bivalve production and filtration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264: 197–212. doi:10.3354/meps264197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fulford, R.S., D.L. Breitburg, R.I.E. Newell, W.M. Kemp, and M. Luckenbach. 2007. Effects of oyster population restoration strategies on phytoplankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay: a flexible modeling approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series 336: 43–61. doi:10.3354/meps336043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grabowski, J.H., and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services. In Ecosystem engineers: concepts, theory and applications, eds. K. Cuddington, J.E. Byers, W.G. Wilson, and A. Hastings, 281–298. Amsterdam: Elsevier–Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Grant, J., G. Bugden, E. Horne, M.-C. Archambault, and M. Carreau. 2007. Remote sensing of particle depletion by coastal suspension-feeders. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 64: 387–390. doi:10.1139/F07-021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grizzle, R.E., R. Langan, and W.H. Howell. 1992. Growth responses of suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs to changes in water flow: differences between siphonate and nonsiphonate taxa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 162: 213–228. doi:10.1016/0022-0981(92)90202-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grizzle, R.E., M.V. Bricelj, and S.E. Shumway. 2001. Physiological ecology of Mercenaria mercenaria. pp. 305–382 In Biology of the hard clam, eds. J.N. Kraeuter and M. Castagna. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Grizzle, R.E., J.R. Adams, and L.J. Walters. 2002. Historical changes in intertidal oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reefs in a Florida lagoon potentially related to boating activities. Journal of Shellfish Research 21: 749–756.Google Scholar
  29. Grizzle, R.E., J.K. Greene, M.W. Luckenbach, and L.D. Coen. 2006. A new in situ method for measuring seston uptake by suspension-feeding bivalve mollusks. Journal of Shellfish Research 25: 643–649. doi:10.2983/0730-8000(2006)25[643:ANISMF]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haamer, J. 1996. Improving water quality in a eutrophied fiord system with mussel farming. Ambio 25: 356–362.Google Scholar
  31. Haamer, J., and J. Rodhe. 2000. Mussel Mytilus edulis (L.) filtering of the Baltic Sea outflow through the Öresund—an example of a natural, large-scale ecosystem restoration. Journal of Shellfish Research 19: 413–421.Google Scholar
  32. Harsh, D.A., and M.W. Luckenbach. 1999. Materials processing by oysters in patches: interactive roles of current speed and seston composition. In Oyster reef habitat restoration: a synopsis and synthesis of approaches, eds. M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, and J.A. Wesson, 251–265. Gloucester Point, Virginia: Virginia Institute of Marine Science.Google Scholar
  33. Jordan, S.J. 1987. Sedimentation and remineralization associated with biodeposition by the American oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland. College Park.Google Scholar
  34. Judge, M.L., L.D. Coen, and K.L. Heck Jr. 1992. The effect of long-term alteration of in situ water currents on the growth of the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 1550–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Judge, M.L., L.D. Coen, and K.L. Heck Jr. 1993. Does Mercenaria mercenaria encounter elevated food levels in seagrass beds? Results from a novel technique to collect suspended food resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 92: 141–150. doi:10.3354/meps092141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy, V.S. 1996. The ecological role of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, with remarks on disease. Journal of Shellfish Research 15: 177–183.Google Scholar
  37. Koseff, J.R., J.K. Holen, S.G. Monismith, and J.E. Cloern. 1993. Coupled effects of vertical mixing and benthic grazing on phytoplankton populations in shallow, turbid estuaries. Journal of Marine Research 51: 843–868. doi:10.1357/0022240933223954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lenihan, H.S., C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Allen. 1996. Does flow speed also have a direct effect on growth of active suspension-feeders: an experimental test on oysters. Limnology Oceanography 41: 1359–1366.Google Scholar
  39. Luckenbach, M.W., R. Mann, and J.A. Wesson, eds. 1999. Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration. A Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, VA, 358 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Luckenbach, M.W., L.D. Coen, P.G. Ross Jr., and J.A. Stephen. 2005. Oyster reef habitat restoration: relationships between oyster abundance and community development based on two studies in Virginia and South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research (Special Issue) 40: 64–78.Google Scholar
  41. Navarro, J.M., and L.A. Velasco. 2003. Comparison of two methods for measuring filtration rate in filter feeding bivalves. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83: 553–558. doi:10.1017/S0025315403007471h.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson, K.A., L.A. Leonard, M.H. Posey, T.D. Alphin, and M.A. Mallin. 2004. Using transplanted oyster (Crassostrea virginica) beds to improve water quality in small tidal creeks: a pilot study. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298: 347–368. doi:10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00367-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newell, R.I.E. 1988. Ecological changes in Chesapeake Bay: Are they the result of overharvesting the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)? In Understanding the estuary: advances in Chesapeake Bay research, ed. M. Lynch, 536–546. Gloucester Point, Virginia: Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication 129.Google Scholar
  44. Newell, R.I.E., and E.W. Koch. 2004. Modeling Seagrass density and distribution in response to changes in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization. Estuaries 27: 793–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Newell, R.I.E., and C.J. Langdon. 1996. Mechanisms and physiology of larval and adult feeding. In The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica, eds. V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell, and A.F. Eble, 185–229. College Park, Maryland: Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  46. Newell, R.I.E., T.R. Fisher, R.R. Holyoke, and J.C. Cornwell. 2004. Influence of eastern oysters on nitrogen and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. In The comparative roles of suspension feeders in ecosystems. NATO Science Series: IV—Earth and Environmental Sciences, eds. R. Dame, and S. Olenin, 93–120. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Newell, R.I.E., T.R. Fisher, R.R. Holyoke, and J.C. Cornwell. 2005. Influence of eastern oysters on N and P regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. In The comparative roles of suspension feeders in ecosystems. NATO science series: IV—earth and environmental sciences, eds. R. Dame, and S. Olenin, 93–120. Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newell, R.I.E., W.M. Kemp, J.D. Hagy, C.F. Cerco, J.M. Testa, and W.R. Boynton. 2007. Top-down control of phytoplankton by oysters in Chesapeake Bay, USA: Comment on Pomeroy et al. (2006). Marine Ecology Progress Series 341: 293–298. doi:10.3354/meps341293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peterson, C.H. 2001. Integrating nutritional physiology and ecology to explain interactions between physics and biology in Mercenaria mercenaria. In Biology of the hard clam, eds. J.N. Kraeuter, and M. Castagna, 423–439. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. Peterson, C.H., and R. Black. 1991. Preliminary evidence for progressive sestonic food depletion in incoming tide over a broad tidal sand flat. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 32: 405–413. doi:10.1016/0272-7714(91)90052-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pomeroy, L.R., C.F. D’Elia, and L.C. Schaffner. 2006. Limits to top-down control of phytoplankton by oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 325: 301–309. doi:10.3354/meps325301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Porter, E.T., J.C. Cornwell, and L.P. Sanford. 2004a. Effect of oysters Crassostrea virginica and bottom shear velocity on benthic–pelagic coupling and estuarine water quality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 27: 61–75. doi:10.3354/meps271061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Porter, E.T., L.P. Sanford, G. Gust, and F.S. Porter. 2004b. Combined water-column mixing and benthic boundary-layer flow in mesocosms: key for realistic benthic–pelagic coupling studies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 271: 43–60. doi:10.3354/meps271043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Powell, E.N., E.E. Hofmann, J.M. Klinck, and S.M. Ray. 1992. Modeling oyster populations. I. A commentary on filtration rate. Is faster always better? Journal of Shellfish Research 11: 387–398.Google Scholar
  55. Riisgård, H.U. 1988. Efficiency of particle retention and filtration rate in 6 species of Northeast American bivalves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 45: 217–223. doi:10.3354/meps045217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Riisgård, H.U. 2001. On measurement of filtration rates in bivalves—the stony road to reliable data: review and interpretation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 211: 275–291. doi:10.3354/meps211275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riisgård, H.U., J. Lassen, M. Kortegaard, L.F. Møller, M. Friedrichs, M.H. Jensen, and P.S. Larsen. 2007. Interplay between filter-feeding zoobenthos and hydrodynamics in the shallow Odense Fjord (Denmark)—earlier and recent studies, perspectives and modeling. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 75: 281–295. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2007.04.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ross, P.G., and M.W. Luckenbach. 2006. Relationships between shell height and dry tissue biomass for the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica). 9th International Conference on Shellfish Restoration, Charleston, SC, November 2006.Google Scholar
  59. Shumway, S. 1996. Environmental factors. In The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica, eds. V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell, and A.F. Eble, 467–514. College Park: Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland System.Google Scholar
  60. Wall, L.M., L.J. Walters, R.E. Grizzle, and P.E. Sacks. 2005. Recreational boating activity and its impact on the recruitment and survival of the oyster Crassostrea virginica on intertidal reefs in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Journal of Shellfish Research 24: 965–973.Google Scholar
  61. Walters, K., and L.D. Coen. 2006. A comparison of statistical approaches to analyzing community convergence between natural and constructed oyster reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330: 81–95. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2005.12.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Widdows, J. 2001. Bivalve clearance rates: inaccurate measurements or inaccurate reviews and misrepresentations? Marine Ecology Progress Series 221: 303–305. doi:10.3354/meps221303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wildish, D.J., and D.D. Kristmanson. 1997. Benthic suspension feeders and flow. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson-Ormond, E.A., E.N. Powell, and S.M. Ray. 1997. Short-term and small-scale variation in food availability to natural oyster populations: food, flow and flux. Marine Ecology 18: 1–34. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0485.1997.tb00424.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond E. Grizzle
    • 1
  • Jennifer K. Greene
    • 1
    • 3
  • Loren D. Coen
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Zoology Department and Jackson Estuarine LaboratoryUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.South Carolina Department of Natural ResourcesMarine Resources Research InstituteCharlestonUSA
  3. 3.The Nature ConservancyBostonUSA
  4. 4.Marine LaboratorySanibel-Captiva Conservation FoundationSanibelUSA

Personalised recommendations