Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1516–1531 | Cite as

Effects of Shoreline Alteration and Other Stressors on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays

  • Christopher J. Patrick
  • Donald E. Weller
  • Xuyong Li
  • Micah Ryder
Article

Abstract

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) provides many important ecosystem functions, but SAV has been significantly reduced in many estuaries. We used spatial–statistical models to identify estuarine shoreline characteristics that explain variations in SAV abundance among subestuaries of the Chesapeake Bay and mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays. We summarized digital spatial data on shoreline construction, shoreline land use, physical characteristics, watershed land cover, and salinity for each subestuary. We related SAV abundance to shoreline characteristics and other stressors using univariate regression and multivariate models. The strongest univariate predictors of SAV abundance were percent shoreline forest, percent shoreline marsh, the percentage of shoreline that is 5–10 m tall, percent riprap, the percentage of subestuary area <2 m deep, percent herbaceous wetland, and percent shrubland. Shoreline marsh, bulkhead, and shoreline forest had different effects on SAV in different salinity zones. Percent riprap shoreline was the most important variable in a regression tree analysis of all the subestuaries, and percent deciduous forest in the watershed was the most important variable in a separate regression tree analysis on the mesohaline subestuaries. Subestuaries with <5.4 % riprap followed a significantly different temporal trajectory than those with >5.4 % riprap. SAV abundance has increased steadily since 1984 in subestuaries with <5.4 % riprap, but has not increased since 1996–1997 in subestuaries with >5.4 % riprap. Some shoreline characteristics interact with larger-scale factors like land cover and salinity zone to affect the distribution of SAV, while the effects of other shoreline characteristics are consistent among subestuaries with different salinities or local watershed land covers. Many shoreline characteristics can be controlled by management decisions, and our results help identify factors that managers should consider in efforts to increase SAV abundance.

Keywords

Shoreline hardening Riprap SAV Land use change Shoreline geometry Landscape analysis 

References

  1. Allan, J.D., D.L. Erickson, and J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37: 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allord, G.J. 1992. 1 to 2,000,000 hydrologic unit map of the conterminous United States (digital data set). Reston: USGS.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D.R. 2008. Model based inference in the life sciences: A prime on evidence. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, D.M., P.M. Glibert, and J.M. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25: 704–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M.E., D.E. Weller, and T.E. Jordan. 2006. Comparison of automated watershed delineations: Effects on land cover areas, percentages, and relationships to nutrient discharge. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72: 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balouskus, R.G., and T.E. Targett. 2012. Egg deposition by Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia: Substrate utilization and comparison of natural and altered shoreline type. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 1100–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batiuk, R.A., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, W. Dennison, L. Staver, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, R. Hickman, S. Kollar, and S. Bieber. 1992. Submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: A technical synthesis. Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA.Google Scholar
  8. Batiuk, R., P. Bergstrom, W.M. Kemp, E.W. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, C.L. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D.J. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg. 2000. Chesapeake bay submerged aquatic vegetation water quality and habitat based requirements and restoration targets: A second technical synthesis. Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA.Google Scholar
  9. Bilkovic, D.M., M. Roggero, C.H. Hershner, and K.H. Havens. 2006. Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6B): 1185–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brush, G.S., and W.B. Hilgartner. 2000. Paleoecology of submerged macrophytes in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Monographs 70: 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, L.M. 1994. Bathymetric data held at the National Geophysical-Data Center. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 12: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comeleo, R.L., J.F. Paul, P.V. August, J. Copeland, C. Baker, S.S. Hale, and R.L. Latimer. 1996. Relationships between watershed stressors and sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay estuaries. Landscape Ecology 11: 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dan, A., A. Moriguchi, K. Mitsuhashi, and T. Terawaki. 1998. Relationship between Zostera marina beds and bottom sediments, wave action offshore in Naruto, southern Japan (original title: Naruto chisaki ni okeru amamo-ba to teishitsu oyobi haro tono kankei). Fisheries Engineering 34: 299–304.Google Scholar
  14. Dauer, D.M., J.A. Ranasinghe, and S.B. Weisberg. 2000. Relationships between benthic community condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23: 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2001. Shoreline metadata profile of the content standards for digital geospatial metadata. Reston: FGDC.Google Scholar
  16. Gabriel, A.O. 2012. Impacts of riprap on wetland shorelines, Upper Winnebago Pool Lakes, Wisconsin. Wetlands 32: 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallegos, C.L. 2001. Calculating Optical Water Quality Targets to Restore and Protect Submersed Aquatic Vegetation: Overcoming Problems in Partitioning the Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient for Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Estuaries 24: 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallegos, C.L., and P. Bergstrom. 2005. Effects of a Prorocentrum minimum bloom on light availability for and potential impacts on submersed aquatic vegetation in upper Chesapeake Bay. Harmful Algae 4: 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gruber, R.K., D.C. Hinkle, and W.M. Kemp. 2011. Spatial patterns in water quality associated with submersed plant beds. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 961–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hale, S.S., J.F. Paul, and J.F. Heltshe. 2004. Watershed landscape indicators of estuarine benthic condition. Estuaries 27: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heck Jr., K.L., and T.A. Thoman. 1984. The nursery role of seagrass meadows in the upper and lower reaches of the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 7: 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heck Jr., K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 253: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hemminga, M., and C.M. Duarte. 2000. Seagrass ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsch, R.M., and J.R. Slack. 1984. A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resources Research 20(6): 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogan, D.M., T.E. Jordan, and M.R. Walbridge. 2004. Phosphorus retention and soil organic carbon in restored and natural freshwater wetlands. Wetlands 24: 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 National Land-Cover Database for the United States. Photogrammatic engineering and remote sensing 70(7): 829–840.Google Scholar
  27. Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi. 1990. The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity. A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10: 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E.W. Koch, J.M. Landwehr, K.A. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N.B. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, and D.J. 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
  29. King, R.S., A.H. Hines, F.D. Graige, and S. Grap. 2005. Regional, watershed, and local correlates of blue crab and bivalve abundances in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay. United States of America Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319: 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kraus, N.C. and O.H. Pilkey. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the beach. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue Number 4.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Living Shoreline Summit Steering Committee. 2006. Preface. Proceedings of the 2006 Living Shoreline Summit, Chesapeake Bay, CRC Publication No. 08-164.Google Scholar
  33. Lubbers, L., W.R. Boynton, and W.M. Kemp. 1990. Variations in structure of estuarine fish communities in relation to abundance of submersed vascular plants. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 65: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maindonald, J., and J. Braun. 2007. Data analysis and graphics using R: An example based approach, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Malhotra, A., and M.S. Fonseca. 2007. WEMo (Wave Exposure Model): Formulation, procedures, and validation. Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research at Beaufort. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS #65.Google Scholar
  36. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1982. The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  37. Marba, N.N., J. Cebrian, S. Enriquez, and C.M. Duarte. 1994. Migration of large-scale subaqueous bedforms measured with seagrasses (Cymodocea nodosa) as tracers. Limnology and Oceanography 39: 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maryland’s Law. 2008. Living Shoreline Protection Act. HB 973.Google Scholar
  39. Mills, K.E., and M.S. Fonseca. 2003. Mortality and productivity of eelgrass Zostera marina under conditions of experimental burial with two sediment types. Marine Ecology Progress Series 255: 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milne, B.T. 1988. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Applied Mathematics and Computation 27: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shepherd, S.P. Powers, and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315: 1846–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Orth, R.J., R.A. Batiuk, P.W. Bergstrom, and K.A. Moore. 2002. A perspective on two decades of policies and regulations influencing the protection and restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Bulletin of Marine Science 71(3): 1391–1403.Google Scholar
  45. Orth, R.J., J.R. Fishman, M.C. Harwell, and S.R. Marion. 2003. Seed-density effects on germination and initial seedling establishment in eelgrass Zostera marina in the Chesapeake Bay region. Marine Ecology Progress Series 250: 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. Serio. 2004. 2003 Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. VIMS Special Scientific Report Number 144. Final Report to U.S. EPA, Cheapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Grant No. CB983807-01-0, 2004Google Scholar
  47. Orth, R.J., M.L. Luckenbach, S.R. Marion, K.A. Moore, and D.J. Wilcox. 2006a. Seagrass recovery in the Delmarva Coastal Bays, USA. Aquatic Botany 84: 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. 2006b. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56: 987–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orth, R.J., M.R. Williams, S.R. Marion, D.J. Wilcox, T.J.B. Carruthers, K.A. Moore, W.M. Kemp, W.C. Dennison, N.B. Rybicki, P. Bergstrom, and R. Batiuk. 2010. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1144–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paerl, H.W., W.R. Boynton, R.L. Dennis, C.T. Driscoll, H.S. Greening, J.N. Kremer, N.N. Rabalais, and S.P. Seitzinger. 2001. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in coastal waters: Biogeochemical and ecological implications. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 57: 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paling, E.I., M. van Keulen, and K.D. Wheeler. 2003. The influence of spacing on mechanically transplanted seagrass survival in a high energy regime. Restoration Ecology 11: 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Posey, M.H., C. Wigan, and J.C. Stevenson. 1993. Effects of an introduced aquatic plant, Hydrilla verticillata, on benthic communities in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 37: 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
  55. Rasmussen, E. 1977. The wasting disease of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and its effects on environmental factors and fauna. In Seagrass ecosystems, ed. C.P. McRoy and C. Helfferich, 1–51. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  56. Rodriguez, W., P.V. August, Y. Wang, J.F. Paul, A. Gold, and N. Rubinstein. 2007. Empirical relationships between land use/cover and estuarine condition in the Northeastern United States. Landscape Ecology 22: 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Segar, D.A., and E.S. Segar. 2007. Introduction to ocean sciences, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  58. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2006. Influence of shallow-water habitats and shoreline development upon abundance, biomass, and diversity of benthic prey and predators in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Southwick, C.H., and F.W. Pine. 1975. Abundance of submerged vascular vegetation in the Rhode River from 1966 to 1973. Chesapeake Science 16: 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strayer, D.L., S.E.G. Findlay, D. Miller, H.M. Malcom, D.T. Fischer, and T. Coote. 2012. Biodiversity in Hudson River shore zones: Influence of shoreline type and physical structure. Aquatic Sciences 74: 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tatu, K.S., J.T. Anderson, L.J. Hindman, and G. Seidel. 2007. Mute swans’ impact on submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1431–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Theiler, E. R., and E. S. Hammar-klose. 1999. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to future sea-level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast Open-File Report 99-593. Washington: US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  63. Tzortziou, M., P. J. Neale, C.L. Osburn, J.P. Megonigal, N. Maie, R. Jaffe. 2008. Tidal marshes as a source of optically and chemically distinctive colored dissolved organic matter in the Chesapeake Bay. Limnological Oceanography 53(1): 148–159.Google Scholar
  64. Tzortziou, M., P. J. Neale, J.P. Megonigal, C.L. Pow, and M. Butterworth. 2011. Spatial gradients in dissolved carbon due to tidal marsh outwelling into a Chesapeake Bay estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 426: 41–56.Google Scholar
  65. USEPA. 2003. Technical support document for identification of Chesapeake Bay designated uses and attainability. Annapolis: USEPA.Google Scholar
  66. Venables, W.N., and R.D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walsh, C.J., A.H. Roy, J.W. Feminella, P.D. Cottingham, P.M. Groffman, and R.P. Morgan II. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weakliem, D.L. 2004. Model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33: 167–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weinstein, M.P., and D.A. Kreeger. 2000. Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Dordrecht: Academic. 542 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whigham, D., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: A landscape perspective. Environmental Management 12: 663–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wigand, C., M. Finn, S. Findlay, and D. Fischer. 2001. Submersed macrophyte effects on nutrient exchanges in riverine sediments. Estuaries 24: 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wright, L.D. 1995. Morphodynamics of inner continental shelves. Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Patrick
    • 1
  • Donald E. Weller
    • 1
  • Xuyong Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Micah Ryder
    • 1
  1. 1.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations