Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 1144–1163 | Cite as

Long-Term Trends in Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, Related to Water Quality

  • Robert J. Orth
  • Michael R. Williams
  • Scott R. Marion
  • David J. Wilcox
  • Tim J. B. Carruthers
  • Kenneth A. Moore
  • W. Michael Kemp
  • William C. Dennison
  • Nancy Rybicki
  • Peter Bergstrom
  • Richard A. Batiuk
Article

Abstract

Chesapeake Bay supports a diverse assemblage of marine and freshwater species of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) whose broad distributions are generally constrained by salinity. An annual aerial SAV monitoring program and a bi-monthly to monthly water quality monitoring program have been conducted throughout Chesapeake Bay since 1984. We performed an analysis of SAV abundance and up to 22 environmental variables potentially influencing SAV growth and abundance (1984–2006). Historically, SAV abundance has changed dramatically in Chesapeake Bay, and since 1984, when SAV abundance was at historic low levels, SAV has exhibited complex changes including long-term (decadal) increases and decreases, as well as some large, single-year changes. Chesapeake Bay SAV was grouped into three broad-scale community-types based on salinity regime, each with their own distinct group of species, and detailed analyses were conducted on these three community-types as well as on seven distinct case-study areas spanning the three salinity regimes. Different trends in SAV abundance were evident in the different salinity regimes. SAV abundance has (a) continually increased in the low-salinity region; (b) increased initially in the medium-salinity region, followed by fluctuating abundances; and (c) increased initially in the high-salinity region, followed by a subsequent decline. In all areas, consistent negative correlations between measures of SAV abundance and nitrogen loads or concentrations suggest that meadows are responsive to changes in inputs of nitrogen. For smaller case-study areas, different trends in SAV abundance were also noted including correlations to water clarity in high-salinity case-study areas, but nitrogen was highly correlated in all areas. Current maximum SAV coverage for almost all areas remain below restoration targets, indicating that SAV abundance and associated ecosystem services are currently limited by continued poor water quality, and specifically high nutrient concentrations, within Chesapeake Bay. The nutrient reductions noted in some tributaries, which were highly correlated to increases in SAV abundance, suggest management activities have already contributed to SAV increases in some areas, but the strong negative correlation throughout the Chesapeake Bay between nitrogen and SAV abundance also suggests that further nutrient reductions will be necessary for SAV to attain or exceed restoration targets throughout the bay.

Keywords

Submersed aquatic vegetation Salinity community-types Chesapeake Bay Abundance Nutrients Nitrogen Water quality 

References

  1. Baden, S., M. Gullstrom, B. Lunden, L. Pihl, and R. Rosenberg. 2003. Vanishing seagrass (Zostera marina, L.) in Swedish coastal waters. Ambio 32: 374–377.Google Scholar
  2. Batiuk, R., R. J. Orth, K. Moore, P. Heasley, W. Dennison, J. C. Stevenson, L. Staver, V. Carter, N. Rybicki, S. Kollar, R. E. Hickman, and S. Bieber. 1992. Submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration goals: A technical synthesis. USEPA Final Report. CBP/TRS 83/92.Google Scholar
  3. Bayley, S., H. Rabin, and C.H. Southwick. 1968. Recent decline in the distribution and abundance of Eurasian milfoil in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science 9: 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayley, S., V.C. Stotts, P.F. Springer, and J. Steenis. 1978. Changes in submerged aquatic macrophyte populations at the head of the Chesapeake Bay, 1958–1974. Estuaries 1: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boström, C., E. Bonsdorff, P. Kangas, and A. Norkkoet. 2002. Long-term changes of a brackish-water eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) community indicate effects of coastal eutrophication. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 795–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boynton, W.R., J.D. Hagy, J.C. Cornwell, W.M. Kemp, S.M. Greene, M.S. Owens, J.E. Baker, and R.K. Larsen. 2008. Nutrient budgets and management actions in the Patuxent River estuary, Maryland. Estuaries and Coasts 31: 623–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodersen, K.P., B.V. Odgaard, O. Vestergaard, and N.J. Anderson. 2001. Chironimid stratigraphy in the shallow and eutrophic Lake Sobygaard, Denmark: Chironomid-macrophyte co-occurrence. Freshwater Biology 46: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brush, G.S., and W.B. Hilgartner. 2000. Paleoecology of submerged macrophytes in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Monographs 70: 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkholder, J.M., D.A. Tomasko, and B.W. Touchette. 2007. Seagrasses and eutrophication. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 350: 46–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butt, A.J., and B.L. Brown. 2000. The cost of nutrient reduction: A case study of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management 28: 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cambridge, M.L., and A.J. McComb. 1984. The loss of seagrasses in Cockburn Sound, Western-Australia. I. The time course and magnitude of seagrass decline in relation to industrial-development. Aquatic Botany 20: 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cardoso, P.G., M.A. Pardal, A.I. Lillebo, S.M. Ferreira, D. Raffaelli, and J.C. Marques. 2004. Dynamic changes in seagrass assemblages under eutrophication and implications for recovery. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 302: 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carriker, M. 1967. Ecology of estuarine benthic invertebrates: A perspective. In Estuaries, ed. G.H. Lauff, 442–487. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Publication Number 83.Google Scholar
  14. Carter, V., and N.B. Rybicki. 1986. Resurgence of submersed aquatic macrophytes in the tidal Potomac River, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Estuaries 9: 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter, V., J. E. Paschal, Jr., and N. Bartow. 1985. Distribution and abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation in the tidal Potomac River and Estuary, Maryland and Virginia, May 1978 to November 1981: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2234A, 46 p.Google Scholar
  16. Carter, V., N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, and M. Turtora. 1994. Role of weather and water quality in population dynamics of submersed macrophytes in the tidal Potomac River. Estuaries 17: 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2003. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  18. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004a. Technical support document for identification of Chesapeake Bay designated uses and attainability: 2004 addendum. Annapolis: USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  19. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004b. Chesapeake Bay program Analytical Segmentation Schemes: Revision, decisions, and rationales, 1983–2003. EPA 903 R-04-008. CBP/TRS 268/04. Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  20. Cho, H.J., and M.A. Poirrier. 2005. Response of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana to the 1997–2001 El Nino Southern Oscillation Shifts. Estuaries 28: 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, F.W. 1985. Historical changes in submerged macrophyte communities of upper Chesapeake Bay. Ecology 66: 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. BioScience 43: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321: 926–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dobson, J. E., E. A. Bright, R. L. Ferguson, D. W. Field, L. L. Wood, K. D. Haddad, H. Iredale III, J. R. Jensen, V. V. Klemas, R. J. Orth, and J. P. Thomas. 1995. NOAA Coastal change analysis program (C-CAP): Guidance for regional implementation. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 123. 92 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Duarte, C.M. 1991. Seagrass depth limits. Aquatic Botany 40: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duarte, C.M. 1995. Submerged aquatic vegetation in relation to different nutrient regimes. Ophelia 41: 87–112.Google Scholar
  27. Duarte, C.M., N. Marba, D. Krause-Jensen, and M. Sanchez-Camacho. 2007. Testing the predictive power of seagrass depth limit models. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 652–656.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher, T.R., A.B. Gustafson, K. Sellner, R. Lacouture, L.W. Haas, R.L. Wetzel, R. Magnien, D. Everitt, B. Michaels, and R. Karrh. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation of resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 133: 763–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher, T.R., J.D. Hagy, W.R. Boynton, and M.R. Williams. 2006. Cultural eutrophication in the Choptank and Patuxent estuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gallegos, C.L., and P.W. Bergstrom. 2005. Effects of a Prorocentrum minimum bloom on light availability for and potential impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation in upper Chesapeake Bay. Harmful Algae 4: 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greening, H., and A. Janicki. 2006. Toward reversal of eutrophic conditions in a subtropical estuary: Water quality and seagrass response to nitrogen loading reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Environmental Management 38: 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Keefe, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950-2001: Long term change in relation to nutrient loading. Estuaries 27: 634–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D’Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, C. Ebert, H.E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H.S. Lenihan, E.M.P. Madin, M.T. Perry, E.R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Steneck, and R. Watson. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hauxwell, J., J. Cebrian, C. Furlong, and I. Valiela. 2001. Macroalgal canopies contribute to eelgrass (Zostera marina) decline in temperate estuarine ecosystems. Ecology 82: 1007–1022.Google Scholar
  35. Heck Jr., K.L., and J.F. Valentine. 2007. The primacy of top-down effects in shallow benthic ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heminnga, M.A., and C.M. Duarte. 2000. Seagrass ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hennessey, T.M. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management 22: 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hovel, K.A., and R.N. Lipcius. 2001. Habitat fragmentation in a seagrass landscape: Patch size and complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82: 1814–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, M.R., S.L. Williams, C.H. Lieberman, and A. Solbak. 2003. Changes in the abundance of the seagrasses Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) and Ruppia maritima L. (widgeongrass) in San Diego, California, following an El Nino event. Estuaries 26: 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kandrud, H. A. 1991. Widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima L.): A literature review. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service 10. 58 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Kemp, W. M. and L. Murray. 2008. Large-scale restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay: A design-with-nature approach. Final Report NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. Grant No. NA06NMF4570282.17 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Kemp, W.M., R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson, W.R. Boynton, and J.C. Means. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society 17: 78–87.Google Scholar
  44. Kemp, W.M., R. Batuik, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, G. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E. Koch, J. Landwehr, K. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, and D. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries. 27: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kendrick, G.A., M.J. Aylward, B.J. Hegge, M.L. Cambridge, K. Hillman, A. Wyllie, and D.A. Lord. 2002. Changes in seagrass coverage in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia between 1967 and 1999. Aquatic Botany 73: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kenworthy, W.J., and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. Light requirements of seagrasses Halodule wrightii and Syringodium filiforme derived from the relationship between diffuse light attenuation and maximum depth distribution. Estuaries 19: 740–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Koch, E.W. 2001. Beyond light: Physical, geological and geochemical parameters as possible submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements. Estuaries 24: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Komatsu, T. 1996. Long-term changes in the Zostera bed area in the Seto Inland Sea (Japan), especially along the coast of the Okayama Prefecture. Oceanologica Acta 20: 209–216.Google Scholar
  50. Körner, S. 2002. Loss of submerged macrophytes in shallow lakes in north-eastern Germany. International Review Hydrobiologia 87: 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krause-Jensen, D., T.M. Greve, and K. Nielsen. 2005. Eelgrass as a bioindicator under the European Water Framework Directive. Water Resources Management 19: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krause-Jensen, D., S. Sagert, H. Schubert, and C. Boström. 2008. Empirical relationships linking distribution and abundance of marine vegetation and eutrophication. Ecological Indicators 8: 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lapointe, B.E., and M.W. Clark. 1992. Nutrient inputs from the watershed and coastal eutrophication in the Florida Keys. Estuaries 15: 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Larkum, A.W.D., R.J. Orth, and C.M. Duarte. 2006. Seagrasses: Biology, ecology and conservation, 691. Springer: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  55. Les, D.H., M.A. Cleland, and M. Waycott. 1997. Phylogenetic studies in Alismatidae, II—Evolution of marine angiosperms (seagrasses) and hydrophily. Systematic Botany 22: 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li, X., D.E. Weller, C.L. Gallegos, T.E. Jordan, and H.C. Kim. 2007. Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 840–854.Google Scholar
  57. Lotze, H.K., H.S. Lenihan, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R.G. Cooke, M.C. Kay, S.M. Kidwell, M.X. Kirby, C.H. Peterson, and J.B.C. Jackson. 2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coasts. Science 312: 1806–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Middlelboe, A.L., and S. Markager. 1997. Depth limits and minimum light requirements of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 37: 553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moore, K.A. 2004. Influence of seagrasses on water quality in shallow regions of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Journal Coastal Research SI45: 162–178.Google Scholar
  60. Moore, K.A., and J.C. Jarvis. 2008. Environmental factors affecting recent summertime eelgrass diebacks in the Lower Chesapeake Bay: Implications for long-term persistence. Journal of Coastal Research 55: 35–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moore, K.A., H.A. Neckles, and R.J. Orth. 1996. Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) growth and survival along a gradient of nutrients and turbidity in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 142: 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moore, K.A., R.L. Wetzel, and R.J. Orth. 1997. Seasonal pulses of turbidity and their relations to eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) survival in an estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 215: 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moore, K.A., D.J. Wilcox, and R.J. Orth. 2000. Analysis of the abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moore, K.A., R.J. Orth, and D.J. Wilcox. 2009. Assessment of the abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) communities in the Chesapeake Bay and its use in SAV management. In Remote sensing and geospatial technologies for coastal ecosystems assessment and management, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, ed. X. Yang, 233–257. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Morris, K., P.C. Bailey, P.I. Boon, and L. Hughes. 2003. Alternative stable states in the aquatic vegetation of shallow urban lakes. II. Catastrophic loss of aquatic plants consequent to nutrient enrichment. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 210–215.Google Scholar
  66. Moss, B. 2008. The Norfolk Broadland: Experiments in the restoration of a complex wetland. Biological Review 58: 521–561.Google Scholar
  67. Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shepherd, S.P. Powers, and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315: 1846–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Najjar, R.G., C.R. Pyke, M.B. Adams, D. Breitburg, C. Hershner, M. Kemp, R. Howarth, M.R. Mulholland, M. Paolisso, D. Secor, K. Sellner, D. Wardrop, and R. Wood. 2010. Potential climate change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Neundorfer, J.V., and W.M. Kemp. 1993. Nitrogen versus phosphorus enrichment of brackish water: Responses of the submerged plants Potamogeton perfoliatus and its associated algal community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 94: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Orth, R.J. 1975. Destruction of Zostera marina, by the cownose ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Chesapeake Science 16: 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222: 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1984. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An historical perspective. Estuaries 7: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1988. Distribution of Zostera marina L. and Ruppia maritima L. s.l. along depth gradients in the lower Chesapeake Bay, USA. Aquatic Botany 32: 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Orth, R. J. and S. R. Marion. 2008. Restoration of eelgrass communities in Chesapeake Bay with seeds: The emerging issues. Final Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Award Number NA03NMF4570250463.Google Scholar
  75. Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox. A. Kenne, L. S. Nagey, A. Owens, J. R. Whiting and A. Serio. 2005. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries and Chincoteague Bay-2004. Final Report U.S.E.P.A. (http://vims.edu/bio/sav/sav04).
  76. Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck Jr., A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56: 987–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting and A. Kenne. 2007. 2006 Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. VIMS Special Scientific Report Number 150. Final Report to NOAA, Washington, D.C. Grant No. NA06NMF4570118.Google Scholar
  78. Orth, R.J., S.R. Marion, K.A. Moore, and D.J. Wilcox. 2010. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in the Chesapeake Bay region of mid-Atlantic coast of the USA: Issues in conservation and restoration. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pandolfi, J.M., R.H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T.P. Hughes, K.A. Bjorndal, R.C. Cooke, D. McArdle, L. McClenachan, M.J.H. Newman, G. Paredes, R.R. Warner, and J.B.C. Jackson. 2003. Global trajectories of the long term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301: 955–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pyke, C., R. G. Najjar, M. B. Adams, M. Kemp, C. Ersjner, R. Howarth, M. Mulholland, M. Paolisso, D. Secor, K. Sellner, D. Wardrop, and R. Wood. 2008. Climate change and the Chesapeake Bay: State-of-the-Science and recommendations. A report from the Chesapeake Bay Program Sciences and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), Annapolis, MD. 59 pp.Google Scholar
  81. Rask, N., S.E. Pedersen, and M.H. Jensen. 1999. Response to lowered nutrient discharges in the coastal waters around the island of Funen, Denmark. Hydrobiologia 393: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rybicki, N.B., and V.P. Carter. 1986. The effects of grazers and light penetration on the survival of transplants of Vallisneria americana Michs in the tidal Potomac River, Maryland. Aquatic Botany 24: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rybicki, N.B., and J.M. Landwehr. 2007. Long-term changes in abundance and diversity of macrophyte and waterfowl populations in an estuary with exotic macrophytes and improving water quality. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 1195–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rybicki, N.B., D.G. McFarland, H.A. Ruhl, J.T. Reel, and J.W. Barko. 2001. Investigations of the availability and survival of submersed aquatic vegetation propagules in the Tidal Potomac River. Estuaries 24: 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sand-Jensen, K., T. Riis, O. Vestergaard, and S.E. Larsen. 2000. Macrophyte decline in Danish lakes and streams over the past 100 years. Journal of Ecology 88: 1030–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: 591–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sellner, K. (ed.). 2005. Hurricane Isabel in Perspective: Proceedings of a Conference. CRC Publ. No. 05-160, Heritage Printing, Edgewater, MD. 266 pp.Google Scholar
  88. Short, F.T., and D.M. Burdick. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 19: 730–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stevenson, J. C. and N. Confer (eds.). 1978. Summary of available information on Chesapeake Bay submerged vegetation. FWS/035-78/66. August, l978.Google Scholar
  90. Stevenson, J.C., L.W. Staver, and K.W. Staver. 1993. Water quality associated with survival of submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16: 346–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Terrados, J.C.M., M.D. Duarte, J.B. Fortes, N.S.R. Agawin, S. Bach, U. Thampanya, L. Kamp-Nielsen, W.J. Kenworthy, O. Geertz-Hansen, and J. Vermaat. 1998. Changes in community structure and biomass of seagrass communities along gradients of siltation in SE Asia. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 46: 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thielbar, M., M. Patetta, and P. Marovich. 2005. Introduction to ANOVA, regression and logistic regression. SAS training manual. 253 pp.Google Scholar
  93. Tomasko, D.A., C.A. Corbett, H.S. Greening, and G.E. Raulerson. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation 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: 797–805.Google Scholar
  94. Twilley, R.R., W.M. Kemp, K.W. Staver, J.C. Stevenson, and W.R. Boynton. 1985. Nutrient enrichment of estuarine submersed vascular plant communities. 1. Algal growth and effects on production of plants and associated communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Van Der Heide, T., E.H. van Nes, G.W. Gerling, A.J.P. Smolders, T.J. Bouma, and M.M. van Katwijk. 2007. Positive feedbacks in seagrass ecosystems: Implications for seagrass success in conservation and restoration. Ecosystems 10: 3111–1322.Google Scholar
  96. Vermaat, J.E., and R.J. De Bruyne. 1993. Factors limiting the distribution of submerged waterplants in a lowland River Vecht (The Netherlands). Freshwater Biology 30: 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp, and W.R. Boynton. 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass communities on suspended particulates in an estuarine embayment. Marine Geology 59: 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Waycott, M., C.M. Duarte, T.J.B. Carruthers, R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. Calladine, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck Jr., A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, F.T. Short, and S.L. Williams. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 12377–12381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Williams, S.L. 1988. Disturbance and recovery of a deep-water Caribbean seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series 42: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Williams, S.W. 2007. Introduced species in seagrass ecosystems: Status and concerns. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 350: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wright, J.P., and C.G. Jones. 2006. The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: Progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56: 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Orth
    • 1
  • Michael R. Williams
    • 2
  • Scott R. Marion
    • 1
  • David J. Wilcox
    • 1
  • Tim J. B. Carruthers
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kenneth A. Moore
    • 1
  • W. Michael Kemp
    • 3
  • William C. Dennison
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nancy Rybicki
    • 4
  • Peter Bergstrom
    • 5
  • Richard A. Batiuk
    • 6
  1. 1.Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceGloucester PointUSA
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Sciences, Integration Application NetworkUniversity of MarylandAnnapolisUSA
  3. 3.Center for Environmental Sciences, Horn Point LaboratoryUniversity of MarylandCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.US Geological SurveyRestonUSA
  5. 5.National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationAnnapolisUSA
  6. 6.US Environmental Protection AgencyChesapeake Bay ProgramAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations