Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 815–826 | Cite as

Direct and Indirect Interactions Between Lower Estuarine Mangrove and Saltmarsh Habitats and a Commercially Important Penaeid Shrimp

  • Matthew D. TaylorEmail author
  • Alistair Becker
  • Natalie A. Moltschaniwskyj
  • Troy F. Gaston
Article

Abstract

Vegetated habitats in estuaries may provide a structural refuge and food supply in the same place, but benefits are also derived where a productive food source and suitable habitat are adjacent to each other. Quantifying these relationships is fundamental to understanding the structural and functional characteristics of estuarine ecosystems and for informing management actions. Effective juvenile habitat (habitat that contributes greater-than-average numbers of recruits to the adult population), recruitment patterns and trophic relationships were studied for Eastern King Prawn (Penaeus plebejus) in the lower Clarence River estuary, New South Wales, between 2014 and 2016. Effective juvenile habitat was identified in both the north arm and main river channel of the estuary, and these areas also supported a higher abundance of juvenile prawns. There was minimal recruitment to the southern channels of the estuary, possibly due to reduced connectivity with the incoming tide arising from a rock wall. Trophic relationships in parts of the lower estuary were evaluated using stable isotopes, and saltmarsh grass (Sporobolus virginicus) was the dominant primary producer supporting juvenile Eastern King Prawn productivity across the area. Mangroves were of minimal importance, and seagrass cover was minimal in the area studied. The patterns observed indicate that nursery function of different areas within the lower estuary is a product of connectivity, recruitment and nutrition derived from primary productivity of vascular plants. Habitats within the lower Clarence River estuary have seen substantial degradation over decadal time scales, and the implications of our findings for targeting future habitat repair are discussed.

Keywords

Nursery habitat Effective juvenile habitat Fisheries productivity Stable isotope Penaeidae Penaeus plebejus Clarence River 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Fry, E. Mitchell, I. Thiebaud, S. Walsh, H. Whitney, T. Ryan, A. Fowler, A. Russell, V. Raoult, D. Coulthard and J. McLeod for assistance collecting samples throughout this project and K. Russel and C. Copeland for guidance during the execution of the project. This project was supported by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation on behalf of the Australian Government (2013/006; project partners Origin Energy, Newcastle Ports Corporation, Hunter Water and Local Land Services). Funding bodies and project partners had no role in the design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of data. Prawn sampling was carried out under permit P01/0059(A)-2.0 and Animal Research Authority NSW DPI 13/08.

References

  1. Abrantes, K., and M. Sheaves. 2008. Incorporation of terrestrial wetland material into aquatic food webs in a tropical estuarine wetland. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 80: 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrens, R.N.M., C.J. Walters, and V. Christensen. 2012. Foraging arena theory. Fish and Fisheries 13: 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck Jr., K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51: 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, A., and M.D. Taylor. 2017. Nocturnal sampling reveals usage patterns of intertidal marsh and sub-tidal creeks by penaeid shrimp and other nekton in south-eastern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 68: 780–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, A., P.D. Cowley, and A.K. Whitfield. 2010. Use of remote underwater video to record littoral habitat use by fish within a temporarily closed South African estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 391: 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanco-Martínez, Z., and R. Pérez-Castañeda. 2017. Does the relative value of submerged aquatic vegetation for penaeid shrimps vary with proximity to a tidal inlet? Preliminary evidence from a subtropical coastal lagoon. Marine and Freshwater Research 68: 581–591.Google Scholar
  7. Boesch, D.F., and R.E. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: the role of food and refuge. Estuaries 7: 460–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boys, C.A., and R.J. Williams. 2012. Succession of fish and crustacean assemblages following reinstatement of tidal flow in a temperate coastal wetland. Ecological Engineering 49: 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boys, C.A., F.J. Kroon, T.M. Glasby, and K. Wilkinson. 2012. Improved fish and crustacean passage in tidal creeks following floodgate remediation. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connolly, R.M., and N.J. Waltham. 2015. Spatial analysis of carbon isotopes reveals seagrass contribution to fishery food web. Ecosphere 6: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connolly, R.M., D. Gorman, and M.A. Guest. 2005. Movement of carbon among estuarine habitats and its assimilation by invertebrates. Oecologia 144: 684–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creighton, C., P.I. Boon, J.D. Brookes, and M. Sheaves. 2015. Repairing Australia's estuaries for improved fisheries production—what benefits, at what cost? Marine and Freshwater Research 66: 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlgren, C.P., G.T. Kellison, A.J. Adams, B.M. Gillanders, M.S. Kendall, C.A. Layman, J.A. Ley, I. Nagelkerken, and J.E. Serafy. 2006. Marine nurseries and effective juvenile habitats: concepts and applications. Marine Ecology Progress Series 312: 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dakin, W.J. 1938. The habits and life-history of a penaeid prawn (Penaeus plebejus). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London A108: 163–181.Google Scholar
  16. Dall, W., B. Hill, P. Rothlisberg, and D. Sharples. 1990. Life histories. In The biology of the Penaeidae, 283–313. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Elliott, M., A.K. Whitfield, I.C. Potter, S.J.M. Blaber, D.P. Cyrus, F.G. Nordlie, and T.D. Harrison. 2007. The guild approach to categorizing estuarine fish assemblages: a global review. Fish and Fisheries 8: 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fry, B. 2006. Stable isotope ecology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fry, B., and K. Ewel. 2003. Using stable isotopes in mangrove fisheries research—a review and outlook. Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies 39: 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaston, T.F., T.A. Schlacher, and R.M. Connolly. 2006. Flood discharges of a small river into open coastal waters: plume traits and material fate. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guest, M.A., and R.M. Connolly. 2004. Fine-scale movement and assimilation of carbon in saltmarsh and mangrove habitat by resident animals. Aquatic Ecology 38: 599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guest, M.A., R.M. Connolly, S.Y. Lee, N.R. Loneragan, and M.J. Breitfuss. 2006. Mechanism for the small-scale movement of carbon among estuarine habitats: organic matter transfer not crab movement. Oecologia 148: 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haas, H.L., K.A. Rose, B. Fry, T.J. Minello, and L.P. Rozas. 2004. Brown shrimp on the edge: linking habitat to survival using an individual-based simulation model. Ecological Applications 14: 1232–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Layman, C.A. 2007. What can stable isotope ratios reveal about mangroves as fish habitat? Bulletin of Marine Science 80: 513–527.Google Scholar
  25. Lenanton, R.C.J., and I.C. Potter. 1987. Contribution of estuaries to commercial fisheries in temperate Western Australia and the concept of estuarine dependence. Estuaries 10: 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazumder, D., and N. Saintilan. 2010. Mangrove leaves are not an important source of dietary carbon and nitrogen for crabs in temperate Australian mangroves. Wetlands 30: 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melville, A.J., and R.M. Connolly. 2003. Spatial analysis of stable isotope data to determine primary sources of nutrition for fish. Oecologia 136: 499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melville, A.J., and R.M. Connolly. 2005. Food webs supporting fish over subtropical mudflats are based on transported organic matter not in situ microalgae. Marine Biology 148: 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minello, T.J., and P.A. Caldwell. 2006. Analysis of the potential fishery value of the ‘Demonstration Marsh’ on Atkinson Island in Galveston Bay, Texas, 20. Galveston, Texas: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center.Google Scholar
  30. Minello, T.J., K.W. Able, M.P. Weinstein, and C.G. Hays. 2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton: testing hypotheses on density, growth and survival through meta-analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246: 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Montgomery, S.S. 1990. Movements of juvenile eastern king prawns, Penaeus plebejus, and identification of stock along the east-coast of Australia. Fisheries Research 9: 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moriarty, D.J.W. 1977. Quantification of carbon, nitrogen and bacterial biomass in food of some penaeid prawns. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 28: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagelkerken, I., M. Sheaves, R. Baker, and R.M. Connolly. 2015. The seascape nursery: a novel spatial approach to identify and manage nurseries for coastal marine fauna. Fish and Fisheries 16: 362–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ochwada, F., N.R. Loneragan, C.A. Gray, I.M. Suthers, and M.D. Taylor. 2009. Complexity affects habitat preference and predation mortality in postlarval Penaeus plebejus: implications for stock enhancement. Marine Ecology Progress Series 380: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson, B.J., and B. Fry. 1987. Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips, D.L., and J.W. Gregg. 2003. Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too many sources. Oecologia 136: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Racek, A.A. 1959. Prawn investigations in eastern Australia. State Fisheries Research Bulletin 6: 1–57.Google Scholar
  38. Roy, P.S., R.J. Williams, A.R. Jones, I. Yassini, P.J. Gibbs, B. Coates, R.J. West, P.R. Scanes, J.P. Hudson, and S. Nichol. 2001. Structure and function of south-east Australian estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 53: 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruello, N.V. 1975. Geographical distribution, growth and breeding migration of eastern Australian King Prawn Penaeus plebejus Hess. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26: 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saintilan, N., and L. Wen. 2012. Environmental predictors of estuarine fish landings along a temperate coastline. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 113: 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheaves, M. 2017. How many fish use mangroves? The 75% rule an ill-defined and poorly validated concept. Fish and Fisheries.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12213.
  42. Sheaves, M., K. Abrantes, and R. Johnston. 2007. Nursery ground value of an endangered wetland to juvenile shrimps. Wetlands Ecology and Management 15: 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, J.A., D. Mazumder, I.M. Suthers, and M.D. Taylor. 2013. To fit or not to fit: Evaluating stable isotope mixing models using simulated mixing polygons. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4: 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Suthers, I.M. 1984. Functional morphology of the mouthparts and gastric mill in Penaeus plebejus Hess (Decapoda, Penaeidea). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35: 785–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, M.D. 2016. Identifying and understanding nursery habitats for exploited penaeid shrimp in NSW estuaries. In 25th Annual NSW Coastal Conference, 9–11th November, 2016, 1–8. Coffs Harbour. http://www.coastalconference.com/2016/papers2016/Matt%20Taylor.pdf.
  46. Taylor, M.D., J.A. Smith, C.A. Boys, and H. Whitney. 2016. A rapid approach to evaluate putative nursery sites for penaeid prawns. Journal of Sea Research 114: 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor, M.D., B. Fry, A. Becker, and N.A. Moltschaniwskyj. 2017. Recruitment and connectivity influence the role of seagrass as a penaeid nursery habitat in a wave dominated estuary. Science of the Total Environment 584–585: 622–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner, R.E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields of penaeid shrimp. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vander Zanden, M.J., and J.B. Rasmussen. 2001. Variation in d15N and d13C trophic fractionation: Implications for aquatic food web studies. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 2061–2066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman, R.J., and T.J. Minello. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus, and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7: 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, and G. Zamora Jr. 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat by Penaeus aztecus in a Galveston Bay salt marsh. Fishery Bulletin 82: 325–336.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew D. Taylor
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alistair Becker
    • 1
  • Natalie A. Moltschaniwskyj
    • 1
    • 2
  • Troy F. Gaston
    • 2
  1. 1.Port Stephens Fisheries InstituteNew South Wales Department of Primary IndustriesTaylors BeachAustralia
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Life SciencesUniversity of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations