Advertisement

Human Influence at the Coast: Upland and Shoreline Stressors Affect Coastal Macrofauna and Are Mediated by Salinity

  • Rochelle D. Seitz
  • Kathleen E. Knick
  • Theresa M. Davenport
  • Gabrielle G. Saluta
Article

Abstract

Anthropogenic stressors can affect subtidal communities within the land-water interface. Increasing anthropogenic activities, including upland and shoreline development, threaten ecologically important species in these habitats. In this study, we examined the consequences of anthropogenic stressors on benthic macrofaunal communities in 14 subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay. We investigated how subestuary upland use (forested, agricultural, developed land) and shoreline development (riprap and bulkhead compared to marsh and beach) affected density, biomass, and diversity of benthic infauna. Upland and shoreline development were parameters included in the most plausible models among a candidate set compared using corrected Akaike’s Information Criterion. For benthic macrofauna, density tended to be lower in subestuaries with developed or mixed compared to forested or agricultural upland use. Benthic biomass was significantly lower in subestuaries with developed compared to forested upland use, and biomass declined exponentially with proportion of near-shore developed land. Benthic density did not differ significantly among natural marsh, beach, and riprap habitats, but tended to be lower adjacent to bulkhead shorelines. Including all subestuaries, there were no differences in diversity by shoreline type. In low salinities, benthic Shannon (H′) diversity tended to be higher adjacent to natural marshes compared to the other habitats, and lower adjacent to bulkheads, but the pattern was reversed in high salinities. Sediment characteristics varied by shoreline type and contributed to differences in benthic community structure. Given the changes in the infaunal community with anthropogenic stressors, subestuary upland and shoreline development should be minimized to increase benthic production and subsequent trophic transfer within the food web.

Keywords

Shoreline development Invertebrates Estuaries Bulkhead Benthos Chesapeake Bay 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank staff and students from the VIMS Community Ecology and Marine Conservation Biology labs for field, lab, and statistical assistance. We also thank R. Lipcius and M. Karp for their review of and suggestions for this manuscript. This is contribution number 3701 from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Funding Information

Funding for this paper was provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR) Award number NA09NOS4780221 to RDS.

Supplementary material

12237_2017_347_MOESM1_ESM.docx (507 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 506 kb)

References

  1. Airoldi, L., and M.W. Beck. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 45: 345–405.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M.J. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Australian Ecology 26: 32–46.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D.R. 2008. Model based inference in the life sciences: A primer on evidence. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, LLC.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74075-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M.J., R.N. Gorley, and K.R. Clarke. 2008. Permanova + for primer: Guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck Jr., K.W. Able, L. Daniel, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, et al. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51 (8): 633–641.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilkovic, D.M., and M.M. Roggero. 2008. Effects of coastal development on nearshore estuarine nekton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 358: 27–39.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02781819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchheister, A., and R.J. Latour. 2015. Diets and trophic-guild structure of a diverse fish assemblage in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Journal of Fish Biology 86 (3): 967–992.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulleri, F., and M.G. Chapman. 2010. The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (1): 26–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01751.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, R. 2003. Nekton utilization of intertidal fringing salt marsh and revetment hardened shorelines. Masters Thesis, The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, K.R., R.N. Gorley, P.J. Somerfield, and R.M. Warwick. 2014. Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 3rd ed. Plymouth: PRIMER-E 260 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Faber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, Ka. Limburg, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630): 253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S.J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R.K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26: 152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crain, C.M., K. Kroeker, and B.S. Halpern. 2008. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecology Letters 11 (12): 1304–1315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dauer, D.M. 1993. Biological criteria, environmental health and estuarine macrobenthic community structure. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26 (5): 249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(93)90063-P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dauer, D.M., A.J. Rodi, and J.A. Ranasinghe. 1992. Effects of low dissolved oxygen events on the macrobenthos of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15 (3): 384–391.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1352785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, J.L.D., R.L. Takacs, and R. Schnabel. 2008. Evaluating ecological impacts of living shorelines and shoreline habitat elements: An example from the upper western Chesapeake Bay. In Management, policy, science, and engineering of nonstructural erosion control in the Chesapeake Bay: Proceedings of the 2006 living shoreline summit. CRC Publ. 08-164, ed. S.Y. Erdle, J.L.D. Davis, and K.G. Sellner, 55–61. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  18. DeLuca, W.V., C.E. Studds, R.S. King, and P.P. Marra. 2008. Coastal urbanization and the integrity of estuarine waterbird communities: Threshold responses and the importance of scale. Biological Conservation 141. Elsevier Ltd (11): 2669–2678.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and H.D. Berry. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175: 106–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.03.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diaz, R.J., and L.C. Schaffner. 1990. The functional role of estuarine benthos. In Perspectives on the Chesapeake Bay, 1990—Advances in estuarine sciences: Report No CBP/TRS41/90, ed. M. Haire and E.C. Krome, 25–26. Gloucester Point: Chesapeake Research Consortium.Google Scholar
  21. Dimitriou, P.D., N. Papageorgiou, C. Arvanitidis, G. Assimakopoulou, K. Pagou, K.N. Papadopoulou, A. Pavlidou, P. Pitta, S. Reizopoulou, N. Simboura, and I. Karakassis. 2015. One step forward: Benthic pelagic coupling and indicators for environmental status. PLoS One 10 (10): e0141071.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eggleston, D.B., R.N. Lipcius, and A.H. Hines. 1992. Density-dependent predation by blue crabs upon infaunal clam species with contrasting distribution and abundance patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series 85: 55–68.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps085055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 77 (9): 858–864.Google Scholar
  24. Gerritsen, J., A.F. Holland, and D.E. Irvine. 1994. Suspension-feeding bivalves and the fate of primary production: An estuarine model applied to Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 17 (2): 403–416.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1352673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gittman, R.K., F.J. Fodrie, A.M. Popowich, D.A. Keller, J.F. Bruno, C.A. Currin, C.H. Peterson, and M.F. Piehler. 2015. Engineering away our natural defenses: An analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13 (6): 301–307.  https://doi.org/10.1890/150065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gittman, R.K., C.H. Peterson, C.A. Currin, F.J. Fodrie, M.F. Piehler, and J.F. Bruno. 2016a. Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats. Ecological Applications 26 (1): 249–263.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gittman, R.K., S.B. Scyphers, C.S. Smith, I.P. Neylan, and J.H. Grabowski. 2016b. Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: A meta-analysis. Bioscience 66 (9): 763–773.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gregg, T., F.G. Prahl, and B.R.T. Simoneit. 2015. Suspended particulate matter transport of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the lower Columbia River and its estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 60 (6): 1935–1949.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hale, S.S., J.F. Paul, and J.F. Heltshe. 2004. Watershed landscape indicators of estuarine benthic condition. Estuaries 27 (2): 283–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halpern, B.S., K.A. Selkoe, F. Micheli, and C.V. Kappel. 2007. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology 21 (5): 1301–1315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00752.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harik, G., I. Alameddine, R. Maroun, G. Rachid, D. Bruschi, D.A. Garcia, and M. El-Fadel. 2017. Implications of adopting a biodiversity-based vulnerability index versus a shoreline environmental sensitivity index on management and policy planning along coastal areas. Journal of Environmental Management 187: 187–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hendon, J.R., M.S. Peterson, and B.H. Comyns. 2000. Spatio-temporal distribution of larval Gobiosoma bosc in waters adjacent to natural and altered marsh-edge habitats of Mississippi coastal waters. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 143–156.Google Scholar
  33. Howes, B.L., P.K. Weiskel, D.D. Goehringer, and J.M. Teal. 1996. Interception of freshwater and nitrogen transport from uplands to coastal waters: The role of saltmarshes. In Estuarine shores: Hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological interactions, ed. K.F. Nordstrom and Charles T. Roman, 287–310. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Inglis, G.J., and J.E. Kross. 2000. Evidence for systemic changes in the benthic fauna of tropical estuaries as a result of urbanization. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41 (7): 367–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00093-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jantz, P., S. Goetz, and C. Jantz. 2005. Urbanization and the loss of resource lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Management 36 (6): 808–825.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0315-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jiménez, J.A., H.I. Valdemoro, E. Bosom, A. Sánchez-Arcilla, and R.J. Nicholls. 2016. Impacts of sea-level rise-induced erosion on the Catalan coast. Regional Environmental Change 17: 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller. 1997. Effects of agriculture on discharges of nutrients from coastal plain watershed of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Quality 26 (3): 836–848.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1997.00472425002600030034x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kamermans, P. 1994. Similarity in food source and timing of feeding in deposit-and suspension-feeding bivalves. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 104: 63–75.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps104063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. King, R.S., A.H. Hines, F.D. Craige, and S. Grap. 2005. Regional, watershed and local correlates of blue crab and bivalve abundances in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319 (1-2): 101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2004.05.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kornis, M.S., D. Breitburg, R. Balouskus, D. Bilkovic, L.A. Davias, S. Giordano, K. Heggie, A. Hines, J. Jacobs, T. Jordan, R. King, C. Patrick, R. Seitz, H. Soulen, T. Targett, D. Weller, D. Whigham, and J. Uphoff Jr. 2017. Linking the abundance of estuarine fish and mobile shellfish in nearshore waters to shoreline hardening and land cover. Estuaries and Coasts 21: 1–23.Google Scholar
  41. Lawless, A.S., and R.D. Seitz. 2014. Effects of shoreline stabilization and environmental variables on benthic infaunal communities in the Lynnhaven River System of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 457: 41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2014.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 (5): 840–854.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02841338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Llansó, R.J., L.C. Scott, J.L. Hyland, D.M. Dauer, D.E. Russell, and F.W. Kutz. 2002. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. II. Index development. Estuaries 25 (6): 1231–1242.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Long, W.C., R.D. Seitz, B.J. Brylawski, and R.N. Lipcius. 2014. Individual, population, and ecosystem effects of hypoxia on a dominant benthic bivalve in Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Monographs 84 (2): 303–327.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0440.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lovall, C.D., R.D. Seitz, and K.E. Knick. 2016. Benthic communities and trophic structure at altered shorelines in a depauperate estuary. Online. Bulletin of Marine Science 93 (3): 715–741.  https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McArdle, B.H., and M.J. Anderson. 2001. Fitting multivariate models to community data: A comment on distance based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82 (1): 290–297.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0290:FMMTCD]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Menge, B.A., and J.P. Sutherland. 1987. Community regulation: Variation in disturbance, competition, and predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment. American Naturalist 130 (5): 730–757.  https://doi.org/10.1086/284741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moody, K.E. 2001. Patterns of predation on juvenile blue crabs in lower Chesapeake Bay: Size, habitat, and seasonality. In Proceedings of the Blue Crab Mortality Symposium, eds. V. Guillory, H. Perry, and S. VanderKooy, 84–92. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 90. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  49. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2017. Effects of shoreline armouring and overwater structures on coastal and estuarine fish: Opportunities for habitat improvement. Journal of Applied Ecology 54 (5): 1373–1384.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patrick, C.J., D.E. Weller, X. Li, and M. Ryder. 2014. Effects of shoreline alteration and other stressors on submerged aquatic vegetation in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay and the mid-Atlantic coastal bays. Estuaries and Coasts 37 (6): 1516–1531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9768-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Patrick, C.J., D.E. Weller, and M. Ryder. 2016. The relationship between shoreline armoring and adjacent submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and nearby Atlantic Coastal Bays. Estuaries and Coasts 39 (1): 158–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-015-9970-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32 (1): 333–365.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Annual Reviews in Oceanography and Marine Biology 16: 229–311.Google Scholar
  54. Peterson, M.S., and M.R. Lowe. 2009. Implications of cumulative impacts to estuarine and marine habitat quality for fish and invertebrate resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17 (4): 505–523.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10641260903171803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson, M.S., B.H. Comyns, J.R. Hendon, P.J. Bond, and G.A. Duff. 2000. Habitat use by early life-history stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine landscape: Differences between natural and altered shoreline sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8 (2/3): 209–219.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008452805584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. Technical report EPA/CE-81-1. Prepared by Great Lakes laboratory, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY for the US Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers technical committee on criteria for dredged and fill material: Environmental Laboratory, US Army waterways experiment station. Vicksburg.Google Scholar
  57. Prasad, M.B.K., M.C. Maddox, A. Sood, S. Kaushal, and R. Murtugudde. 2014. Nutrients, chlorophyll and biotic metrics in the Rappahannock River estuary: Implications of urbanisation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. Marine and Freshwater Research 65 (6): 475–485.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF12351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prosser, D.J., J.L. Nagel, P.R. Marban, D.D. Day, and R.M. Erwin. 2017. Measuring the effects of local shoreline and subestuary watershed condition on waterbird use: Influences of geography, scale, and season in the Chesapeake Bay region. Estuaries and Coasts.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-017-0288-0.
  59. R Development Core Team. 2016. The R project for statistical computing. Available at https://www.r-project.org.
  60. Rodil, I.F., S. Cividanes, M. Lastra, and J. López. 2008. Seasonal variability in the vertical distribution of benthic macrofauna and sedimentary organic matter in an estuarine beach (NW Spain). Estuaries and Coasts 31 (2): 382–395.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-007-9017-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roman, C.T., N. Jaworski, F.T. Short, S. Findlay, and R.S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of the northeastern United States: Habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries 23 (6): 743–764.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1352997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanger, D.M., A.F. Holland, and D.L. Hernandez. 2004. Evaluation of the impacts of dock structures and land use on tidal creek ecosystems in South Carolina estuarine environments. Environmental Management 33 (3): 385–400.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0019-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Santana-Cordero, A.M., E. Ariza, and F. Romagosa. 2016. Studying the historical evolution of ecosystem services to inform management policies for developed shorelines. Environmental Science & Policy 64: 18–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seitz, R.D., and A.S. Lawless. 2008. Landscape-level impacts of shoreline development upon Chesapeake Bay benthos and their predators. In Management Policy, Science and Engineering of Nonstructural Erosion Control in the Chesapeake Bay: Proceedings of the 2006 Living Shoreline Summit, eds. Erdle, S.Y., J.L. Davis, and K.G. Sellner, 63–70. CRC Publ. 08–164, CRC Press.Google Scholar
  65. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, W.T. Stockhausen, K.A. Delano, M.S. Seebo, and P.D. Gerdes. 2003. Potential bottom-up control of blue crab distribution at various spatial scales. Bulletin of Marine Science 257: 179–188.Google Scholar
  66. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps326011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seitz, R.D., D.M. Dauer, R.J. Llansó, and W.C. Long. 2009. Broad-scale effects of hypoxia on benthic community structure in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 381: S4–S12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jembe.2009.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Seitz, R.D., H. Wennhage, U. Bergström, R.N. Lipcius, and T. Ysebaert. 2014. Published online Oct 14, 2013. Ecological value of coastal habitats for commercially and ecologically important species. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71 (3): 648–665.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steele-Petrović, H.M. 1975. An explanation for the tolerance of brachiopods and relative intolerance of filter-feeding bivalves for soft muddy bottoms. Journal of Paleontology 49 (3): 552–556.Google Scholar
  70. Tourtellotte, G.H., and D.M. Dauer. 1983. Macrobenthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay. II. Lynnhaven Roads, Lynnhaven Bay, Broad Bay, and Linkhorn Bay. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 68 (1): 59–72.  https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19830680105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warwick, R.M., and K.R. Clarke. 1993. Increased variability as a symptom of stress in marine communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 172 (1-2): 215–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(93)90098-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weinstein, M.P., and D.A. Kreeger. 2000. Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Dordrecht, 542 pp: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47534-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weis, J.S., P. Weis, and T. Proctor. 1998. The extent of benthic impacts of CCA-treated wood structures in Atlantic coast estuaries. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 34 (4): 313–322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002449900324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20 (1): 149–158.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1352728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weller, D.E., and M.E. Baker. 2014. Cropland riparian buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay watershed: Spatial patterns and effects on nitrate loads delivered to streams. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50 (3): 696–712.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Widdicombe, S., and J.I. Spicer. 2008. Predicting the impact of ocean acidification on benthic biodiversity: What can animal physiology tell us? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 366 (1): 187–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2008.07.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rochelle D. Seitz
    • 1
  • Kathleen E. Knick
    • 1
  • Theresa M. Davenport
    • 2
  • Gabrielle G. Saluta
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & MaryGloucester PointUSA
  2. 2.Marine Science CenterNortheastern UniversityNahantUSA

Personalised recommendations