Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, 32:375 | Cite as

Is the Response of Estuarine Nekton to Freshwater Flow in the San Francisco Estuary Explained by Variation in Habitat Volume?

  • Wim J. Kimmerer
  • Edward S. Gross
  • Michael L. MacWilliams
Article

Abstract

Abundance of estuarine biota can vary with freshwater inflow through several mechanisms. One proposed mechanism is that the extent of physical habitat for an estuarine species increases with flow. We estimated the contribution of variation in habitat volume to the responses of eight species of estuarine nekton to changes in freshwater flow in the San Francisco Estuary. Resource selection functions for salinity and depth were developed for each species (and for five additional species) using five monitoring data sets. The TRIM3D hydrodynamic model was run for five steady flow scenarios to determine volume by salinity and depth, and resource selection functions were used as a weighting factor to calculate an index of total habitat for each species at each flow. The slopes of these habitat indices vs. flow were consistent with slopes of abundance vs. flow for only two of the species examined. Therefore, other mechanisms must underlie responses of abundance to flow for most species.

Keywords

Fish Habitat Freshwater flow Resource selection function San Francisco Estuary 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by CALFED Bay-Delta Program Contract ERP-02-P19. We thank W. Bennett for helpful discussions. F. Feyrer and M. Weaver provided helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Aleem, A.A. 1972. Effect of river outflow management on marine life. Marine Biology 15: 200–208. doi: 10.1007/BF00383550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armor, C., and P.L. Herrgesell. 1985. Distribution and abundance of fishes in the San Francisco Bay estuary between 1980 and 1982. Hydrobiologia 129: 211–227. doi: 10.1007/BF00048696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellwood, D.R., and T.P. Hughes. 2001. Regional-scale assembly rules and biodiversity of coral reefs. Science 292: 1532–1535. doi: 10.1126/science.1058635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, W.A. 2005. Critical assessment of the delta smelt population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 3(2): Art. 1. (Online Serial) http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss2/art1.
  5. Casulli, V. 1990. Semi-implicit finite difference methods for the two-dimensional shallow water equations. Journal of Computational Physics 86: 56–74. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(90)90091-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casulli, V., and E. Cattani. 1994. Stability, accuracy and efficiency of a semi-implicit method for three-dimensional shallow water flow. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 27: 99–112. doi: 10.1016/0898-1221(94)90059-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cayan, D.R., and D.H. Peterson. 1993. Spring climate and salinity in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Water Resources Research 29: 293–303. doi: 10.1029/92WR02152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng, R.T., V. Casulli, and J.W. Gartner. 1993. Tidal, residual, intertidal mudflat (TRIM) model and its applications to San-Francisco Bay, California. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 36: 235–280. doi: 10.1006/ecss.1993.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cloern, J.E. 1991. Annual variations in river flow and primary production in the South San Francisco Bay estuary (USA). In Estuaries and coasts: Spatial and temporal intercomparisons, eds. M. Elliott, and J.-P. Ducrotoy, 91–96. Fredensborg: Olsen and Olsen.Google Scholar
  10. Cloern, J.E., and R.T. Cheng. 1981. Simulation model of Skeletonema costatum population dynamics in northern San Francisco Bay, California. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 12: 83–100. doi: 10.1016/S0302-3524(81)80119-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cloern, J.E., and F.H. Nichols. 1985. Temporal dynamics of an estuary: San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia. Dordrecht: Junk.Google Scholar
  12. Cloern, J.E., A.D. Jassby, J.K. Thompson, and K.A. Hieb. 2007. A cold phase of the East Pacific triggers new phytoplankton blooms in San Francisco Bay. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 18561–18565. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706151104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conomos, T.J. 1979. San Francisco Bay: The urbanized estuary. San Francisco: Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  14. Deegan, L.A. 1990. Effects of estuarine environmental conditions on population dynamics of young-of-the-year gulf menhaden. Marine Ecology Progress Series 68: 195–205. doi: 10.3354/meps068195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dege, M., and L.R. Brown. 2004. Effect of outflow on spring and summertime distribution and abundance of larval and juvenile fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. In Early life history of fishes in the San Francisco Estuary and Watershed, eds. F. Feyrer, L.R. Brown, R.L. Brown and J.J. Orsi, 49–65. American Fisheries Society Symposium Vol. 39. Bethesda MD: American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
  16. Drinkwater, K.F., and K.T. Frank. 1994. Effects of river regulation and diversion on marine fish and invertebrates. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 4: 135–151. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3270040205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, volume II: Species life history summaries. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.Google Scholar
  18. Feyrer, F., T. Sommer, and W. Harrell. 2006. Managing floodplain inundation for native fish: Production dynamics of age-0 splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in California’s Yolo Bypass. Hydrobiologia 573: 213–226. doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0273-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feyrer, F., M.L. Nobriga, and T.R. Sommer. 2007. Multi-decadal trends for three declining fish species: Habitat patterns and mechanisms in the San Francisco Estuary, California, U.S.A.. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 723–734. doi: 10.1139/F07-048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gammelsrød, T. 1992. Variation in shrimp abundance on the Sofala Bank, Mozambique, and its relation to the Zambezi River runoff. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 35: 91–103. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7714(05)80058-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross, E.S., M.L. MacWilliams, and W. Kimmerer. 2006. Simulating periodic stratification in San Francisco Bay. Proceedings of the Ninth Estuarine and Coastal Modeling Conference, ASCE, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
  22. Guisan, A., and N.E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00354-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatfield, S.E. 1985. Seasonal and interannual variation in distribution and population abundance of the shrimp Crangon franciscorum in San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129: 199–210. doi: 10.1007/BF00048695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hollibaugh, J.T. 1996. San Francisco Bay: the ecosystem. Further investigations into the natural history of San Francisco Bay and delta with reference to the influence of man. San Francisco: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  25. Houde, E.D., and E.S. Rutherford. 1993. Recent trends in estuarine fisheries—Predictions of fish production and yield. Estuaries 16: 161–176. doi: 10.2307/1352488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jassby, A.D., W.J. Kimmerer, S.G. Monismith, C. Armor, J.E. Cloern, T.M. Powell, J.R. Schubel, and T.J. Vendlinski. 1995. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine populations. Ecological Applications 5: 272–289. doi: 10.2307/1942069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaartvedt, S., and D.L. Aksnes. 1992. Does freshwater discharge cause mortality of fjord-living zooplankton. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 34: 305–313. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7714(05)80086-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerr, J.T., and I. Deguise. 2004. Habitat loss and the limits to endangered species recovery. Ecology Letters 7: 1163–1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00676.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kimmerer, W.J. 2002a. Effects of freshwater flow on abundance of estuarine organisms: Physical effects or trophic linkages? Marine Ecology Progress Series 243: 39–55. doi: 10.3354/meps243039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kimmerer, W.J. 2002b. Physical, biological, and management responses to variable freshwater flow into the San Francisco Estuary. Estuaries 25: 1275–1290. doi: 10.1007/BF02692224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kimmerer, W.J. 2004. Open water processes of the San Francisco Estuary: from physical forcing to biological responses. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science (Online Serial) 2: Issue 1, Article 1. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol2/iss1/art1.
  32. Kimmerer, W.J. 2006. Response of anchovies dampens effects of the invasive bivalve Corbula amurensis on the San Francisco Estuary foodweb. Marine Ecology Progress Series 324: 207–218. doi: 10.3354/meps324207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimmerer, W.J., J.H. Cowan Jr., L.W. Miller, and K.A. Rose. 2000. Analysis of an estuarine striped bass population: Influence of density-dependent mortality between metamorphosis and recruitment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 478–486. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-57-2-478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mallin, M.A., H.W. Paerl, J. Rudek, and P.W. Bates. 1993. Regulation of estuarine primary production by watershed rainfall and river flow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 93: 199–203. doi: 10.3354/meps093199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manly, B.F.J., L.L. McDonald, D.L. Thomas, T.L. Mcdonald, and W.P. Erickson. 2002. Resource selection by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies. 2Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Maravelias, C.D. 1999. Habitat selection and clustering of a pelagic fish: Effects of topography and bathymetry on species dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 437–450. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-56-3-437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monismith, S.G., W.J. Kimmerer, J.R. Burau, and M.T. Stacey. 2002. Structure and flow-induced variability of the subtidal salinity field in northern San Francisco Bay. Journal of Physical Oceanography 32: 3003–3019. doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032<3003:SAFIVO>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montagna, P.A., and R.D. Kalke. 1992. The effect of freshwater inflow on meiofaunal and macrofaunal populations in the Guadalupe and Nueces Estuaries, Texas. Estuaries 15: 307–326. doi: 10.2307/1352779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of the delta smelt in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 67–77. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1992)121<0067:LHASOD>2.3.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nichols, F., J. Cloern, S. Luoma, and D. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary. Science 231: 567–573. doi: 10.1126/science.231.4738.567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nixon, S.W., C.A. Oviatt, J. Frithsen, and B. Sullivan. 1986. Nutrients and the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine systems. Journal of the Limnological Society of South Africa 12: 43–71.Google Scholar
  42. Nobriga, M., T. Sommer, F. Feyrer, and K. Fleming. 2008. Long-term trends in summertime habitat suitability for delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 6: Issue 1 Article 1.Google Scholar
  43. Reaugh, M.L., M.R. Roman, and D.K. Stoecker. 2007. Changes in plankton community structure and function in response to variable freshwater flow in two tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Riley, G.A. 1937. The significance of the Mississippi River drainage for biological conditions in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Marine Research 1: 60–74.Google Scholar
  45. Rose, K.A., and J.K. Summers. 1992. Relationships among long-term fisheries abundances, hydrographic variables, and gross pollution indicators in northeastern U.S. estuaries. Fisheries Oceanography 1: 281–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.1992.tb00001.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenfield, J.A., and R.D. Baxter. 2007. Population dynamics and distribution patterns of longfin smelt in the San Francisco Estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1577–1592. doi: 10.1577/T06-148.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan, H.F., and M.A. Noble. 2007. Sea level fluctuations in central California at subtidal to decadal and longer time scales with implications for San Francisco Bay, California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73: 538–550. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2007.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scavia, D., and others. 2002. Climate change impacts on US coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25: 149–164. doi: 10.1007/BF02691304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schoellhamer, D.H. 2002. Variability of suspended-sediment concentration at tidal to annual time scales in San Francisco Bay, USA. Continental Shelf Research 22: 1857–1866. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4343(02)00042-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sin, Y., R.L. Wetzel, and I.C. Anderson. 1999. Spatial and temporal characteristics of nutrient and phytoplankton dynamics in the York River estuary, Virginia: Analyses of long-term data. Estuaries 22: 260–275. doi: 10.2307/1352982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skreslet, S. 1986. The role of freshwater outflow in coastal marine ecosystems, NATO ASI Series G ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Sommer, T., R. Baxter, and B. Herbold. 1997. Resilience of splittail in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 961–976. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1997)126<0961:ROSITS>2.3.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sommer, T.R., W.C. Harrell, and M.L. Nobriga. 2005. Habitat use and stranding risk of juvenile Chinook salmon on a seasonal floodplain. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 1493–1504. doi: 10.1577/M04-208.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sommer, T., and others. 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries 32: 270–277. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(2007)32[270:TCOPFI]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stevens, D.E. 1977. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) year class strength in relation to river flow in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 34–42. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1977)106<34:SBMSYC>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stoner, A.W., J.P. Manderson, and J.P. Pessutti. 2001. Spatially explicit analysis of estuarine habitat for juvenile winter flounder: combining generalized additive models and geographic information systems. Marine Ecology–Progress Series 213: 253–271. doi: 10.3354/meps213253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swartzman, G., C.H. Huang, and S. Kaluzny. 1992. Spatial analysis of Bering sea Groundfish survey data using generalized additive models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 1366–1378. doi: 10.1139/f92-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner, J.L., and H.K. Chadwick. 1972. Distribution and abundance of young-of-the-year striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in relation to river flow in the Sacramento–San Joaquin estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101: 442–452. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1972)101<442:DAAOYS>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Venables, W.N., and B.N. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. 4New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Vörösmarty, C.J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R.B. Lammers. 2000. Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289: 284–288. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5477.284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilber, D.H. 1992. Associations between freshwater inflows and oyster productivity in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 35: 179–190. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7714(05)80112-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilber, D.H. 1994. The influence of Apalachicola River flows on blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, in north Florida. Fishery Bulletin 92: 180–188.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim J. Kimmerer
    • 1
  • Edward S. Gross
    • 2
  • Michael L. MacWilliams
    • 3
  1. 1.Romberg Tiburon CenterSan Francisco State UniversityTiburonUSA
  2. 2.OaklandUSA
  3. 3.San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations