Advertisement

Nekton Community Responses to Seagrass Differ with Shoreline Slope

  • Collin GrossEmail author
  • Cinde Donoghue
  • Casey Pruitt
  • Alan C. Trimble
  • Jennifer L. Ruesink
Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Seagrass beds vary in patch size and shoot density, which can influence the distribution and abundance of nekton responding to habitat structure. In Washington State, USA, eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs under two distinct shoreline slope conditions: shallow tidal flats where eelgrass forms extensive meadows, and steep slopes near channels where it forms narrow, often patchy, fringes adjacent to unvegetated sediment. We sampled nekton in these naturally occurring habitat mosaics with a crossed design: unvegetated, edge, and interior eelgrass (habitat) in flats and fringes. Multivariate community structure showed additive effects of habitat and slope, while aggregate body size did not vary across habitat, shoot density, or slopes. Total nekton abundance responded to structure on fringes (interior > unvegetated; edge = unvegetated; and interior > edge) but not on flats, while half of the most common taxa showed a significant habitat-by-slope interaction in abundance. Diversity and species richness were greater in fringes than flats, irrespective of habitat type. Since canopy height and shoot density did not differ significantly between fringes and flats, it is unlikely that fine-scale aspects of vegetation structure explain why fauna responded differently to eelgrass fringes and flats. We instead attribute these different responses to underlying differences between fringes and flats in within-habitat heterogeneity and connectivity to deeper habitats, as well as species-specific responses to greater edge/interior ratios in fringing beds. Our study shows that topographic and seascape heterogeneity as well as habitat connectivity may play key roles in the value of nearshore estuarine habitats for nekton in the Northeast Pacific.

Keywords

Habitat heterogeneity Structural complexity Habitat connectivity Community structure Seagrass Nekton 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Help in the field was provided by J. Borin, S. Valdez, and P. Markos. We are grateful to the Skokomish Tribe for granting access to their territory and local eelgrass beds. The manuscript was improved by comments from A. T. Lowe, L. Harris, M. S. Turner, J.J. Stachowicz, and three anonymous reviewers.

Funding Information

This project was supported by Washington Department of Natural Resources through an interagency agreement with the University of Washington (IAA 16-19) and by Washington Sea Grant Program, pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award NA14OAR4170078. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of funding agencies or sub-agencies.

Supplementary material

12237_2019_556_MOESM1_ESM.docx (458 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 457 kb)

References

  1. Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B., Walker S. 2015. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (version 1.1–8). Journal of Statistical Software.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, H.D., A.T. Sewell, S. Wyllie-Echeverria, B.R. Reeves, T.F. Mumford Jr., J.R. Skalski, R.C. Zimmerman, and J. Archer. 2003. Puget Sound Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Project: 2000–2002 monitoring report. Olympia: Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources 60pp.Google Scholar
  3. Blandon, A., and P.S.E.Z. Ermgassen. 2014. Quantitative estimate of commercial fish enhancement by seagrass habitat in southern Australia (vol 141, pg 1, 2014). Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 151: 370–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostrom, C., S.J. Pittman, C. Simenstad, and R.T. Kneib. 2011. Seascape ecology of coastal biogenic habitats: advances, gaps, and challenges. Marine Ecology Progress Series 427: 191–217.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canion, C.R., and K.L. Heck. 2009. Effect of habitat complexity on predation success: re-evaluating the current paradigm in seagrass beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393: 37–46.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, K.R., and R.M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 2nd ed. Plymouth: PRIMER-E 172pp.Google Scholar
  7. Connolly, R.M., and J.S. Hindell. 2006. Review of nekton patterns and ecological processes in seagrass landscapes. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 68 (3-4): 433–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Angelo, J.A., P.W. Stevens, D.A. Blewett, and T.S. Switzer. 2014. Fish assemblages of shoal- and shoreline-associated seagrass beds in eastern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143 (4): 1037–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2014.911209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowty, P., B. Reeves, H. Berry, S. Wyllie-Echeverria, T. Mumford, A. Sewell, P. Milos, and R. Wright. 2005. Puget Sound Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Project 2003–2004 Monitoring Report. Olympia: Washington Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  10. Ferraro, S.P., and F.A. Cole. 2010. Ecological periodic tables for nekton usage of four US Pacific northwest estuarine habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67 (12): 1957–1967.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f10-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Francour, P. 1997. Fish assemblages of Posidonia oceanica beds at Port Cros (France, NW Mediterranean): assessment of composition and long-term fluctuations by visual census. Marine Ecology-Pubblicazioni Della Stazione Zoologica Di Napoli I 18 (2): 157–173.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1997.tb00434.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Good, T.P., J.A. June, M.A. Etnier, and G. Broadhurst. 2010. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60 (1): 39–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorman, A.M., R.S. Gregory, and D.C. Schneider. 2009. Eelgrass patch size and proximity to the patch edge affect predation risk of recently settled age 0 cod (Gadus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 371 (1): 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2008.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gross, C., C. Donoghue, C. Pruitt, A.C. Trimble, and J.L. Ruesink. 2017. Taxonomic and functional assessment of mesopredator diversity across an estuarine habitat mosaic. Ecosphere 8 (4): 13.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gross, C., C. Donoghue, C. Pruitt, and J.L. Ruesink. 2018. Habitat use patterns and edge effects across a seagrass-unvegetated ecotone depend on species-specific behaviors and sampling methods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 598: 21–33.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heck, K.L., K.W. Able, M.P. Fahay, and C.T. Roman. 1989. Fishes and decapod crustaceans of Cape Cod eelgrass meadows—species composition, seasonal abundance patterns and comparison with unvegetated substrates. Estuaries 12 (2): 59–65.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1351497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heithaus, M.R. 2004. Fish communities of subtropical seagrass meadows and associated habitats in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Bulletin of Marine Science 75: 79–99.Google Scholar
  18. Hemery, L.G., and S.K. Henkel. 2015. Patterns of benthic mega-invertebrate habitat associations in the Pacific Northwest continental shelf waters. Biodiversity and Conservation 24 (7): 1691–1710.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0887-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson, C.J., B. Gilby, S.Y. Lee, and T. Stevens. 2017. Contrasting effects of habitat complexity and connectivity on biodiversity in seagrass meadows. Marine Biology 164 (5): 9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3149-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hensgen, G.M., G.J. Holt, S.A. Holt, J.A. Williams, and G.W. Stunz. 2014. Landscape pattern influences nekton diversity and abudance in seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 507: 139–152.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmer, M., S. Baden, C. Bostrom, and P.O. Moksnes. 2009. Regional variation in eelgrass (Zostera marina) morphology, production and stable sulfur isotopic composition along the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak coasts. Aquatic Botany 91 (4): 303–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2009.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holsman, K.K., P.S. Mcdonald, and D.A. Armstrong. 2006. Intertidal migration and habitat use by subadult Dungeness crab Cancer magister in a NE Pacific estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 308: 183–195.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps308183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hori, M., T. Suzuki, Y. Monthum, T. Srisombat, Y. Tanaka, M. Nakaoka, and H. Mukai. 2009. High seagrass diversity and canopy-height increase associated fish diversity and abundance. Marine Biology 156 (7): 1447–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1184-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horinouchi, M. 2007. Review of the effects of within-patch scale structural complexity on seagrass fishes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 350 (1-2): 111–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.06.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howe, E.R., and C.A. Simenstad. 2015. Using stable isotopes to discern mechanisms of connectivity in estuarine detritus-based food webs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 518: 13–29.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hughes, J.E., L.A. Deegan, J.C. Wyda, M.J. Weaver, and A. Wright. 2002. The effects of eelgrass habitat loss on estuarine fish communities of southern New England. Estuaries 25 (2): 235–249.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02691311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes, B.B., M.D. Levey, J.A. Brown, M.C. Fountain, A.B. Carlisle, S.Y. Litvin, C.M. Greene, W.N. Heady, and M.G. Gleason. 2014. Nursery functions of U.S. west coast estuaries: the state of knowledge for juveniles of focal invertebrate and fish species. Arlington: The Nature Conservancy 168pp.Google Scholar
  28. Hyndes, G.A., A.J. Kendrick, L.D. MacArthur, and E. Stewart. 2003. Differences in the species- and size-composition of fish assemblages in three distinct seagrass habitats with differing plant and meadow structure. Marine Biology 142 (6): 1195–1206.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-003-1010-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Irlandi, E.A. 1994. Large-scale and small-scale effects of habitat structure on rates of predation—how percent coverage of seagrass affects rates of predation and siphon nipping on an infaunal bivalve. Oecologia 98 (2): 176–183.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00341470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, E.L., M.J. Attrill, and M.B. Jones. 2006. Habitat characteristics and spatial arrangement affecting the diversity of fish and decapod assemblages of seagrass (Zostera marina) beds around the coast of Jersey (English Channel). Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 68 (3-4): 421–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaxion-Harm, J., and M.R. Speight. 2012. Algal cover in mangroves affects distribution and predation rates by carnivorous fishes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 414: 19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller, M., and S.W. Harris. 1966. Growth of eelgrass in relation to tidal depth. Journal of Wildlife Management 30 (2): 280.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3797815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lefcheck, J.S., S.R. Marion, A.V. Lombana, and R.J. Orth. 2016. Faunal communities are invariant to fragmentation in experimental seagrass landscapes. PLoS One 11 (5): 24.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macarthur, L.D., and G.A. Hyndes. 2001. Differential use of seagrass assemblages by a suite of odacid species. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 52 (1): 79–90.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2000.0728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Macarthur, R., and J.W. Macarthur. 1961. On bird species-diversity. Ecology 42 (3): 594–598.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1932254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macreadie, Peter I., Hindell, Jeremy S., Keough, Michael J., Jenkins, Gregory P., Connolly, Rod M. 2010. Resource distribution influences positive edge effects in a seagrass fish. Ecology 91 (7):2013–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nanjo, K., H. Kohno, Y. Nakamura, M. Horinouchi, and M. Sano. 2014. Effects of mangrove structure on fish distribution patterns and predation risks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 461: 216–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2014.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., & Wagner, H. 2015. vegan: Community Ecology Package (version 2.2–1).Google Scholar
  39. Olds, A.D., R.M. Connolly, K.A. Pitt, and P.S. Maxwell. 2012. Primacy of seascape connectivity effects in structuring coral reef fish assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 462: 191–203.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 (12): 987–996. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[987:agcfse]2.0.co;2.Google Scholar
  41. Peterson, C.H. 1991. Intertidal zonation of marine invertebrates in sand and mud. American Scientist 79: 236–249.Google Scholar
  42. Pfeifer, M., V. Lefebvre, C.A. Peres, C. Banks-Leite, O.R. Wearn, C.J. Marsh, S.H.M. Butchart, V. Arroyo-Rodriguez, J. Barlow, A. Cerezo, L. Cisneros, N. D'cruze, D. Faria, A. Hadley, S.M. Harris, B.T. Klingbeil, U. Kormann, L. Lens, G.F. Medina-Rangel, J.C. Morante-Filho, P. Olivier, S.L. Peters, A. Pidgeon, D.B. Ribeiro, C. Scherber, L. Schneider-Maunoury, M. Struebig, N. Urbina-Cardona, J.I. Watling, M.R. Willig, E.M. Wood, and R.M. Ewers. 2017. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature 551 (7679): 187–191.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  44. Ribeiro, C., A.J. Almeida, R. Araujo, M. Biscoito, and M. Freitas. 2005. Fish assemblages of Cais do Carvao Bay (Madeira Island) determined by the visual census technique. Journal of Fish Biology 67 (6): 1568–1584.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2005.00861.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Short, F.T., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1996. Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation 23 (01): 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Short, F.T., B. Polidoro, S.R. Livingstone, K.E. Carpenter, S. Bandeira, J.S. Bujang, H.P. Calumpong, T.J.B. Carruthers, R.G. Coles, W.C. Dennison, P.L.A. Erftemeijer, M.D. Fortes, A.S. Freeman, T.G. Jagtap, A.H.M. Kamal, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, Y.A. La Nafie, I.M. Nasution, R.J. Orth, A. Prathep, J.C. Sanciangco, B. Van Tussenbroek, S.G. Vergara, M. Waycott, and J.C. Zieman. 2011. Extinction risk assessment of the world’s seagrass species. Biological Conservation 144 (7): 1961–1971.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, T.M., J.S. Hindell, G.P. Jenkins, and R.M. Connolly. 2008. Edge effects on fish associated with seagrass and sand patches. Marine Ecology Progress Series 359: 203–213.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stein, A., K. Gerstner, and H. Kreft. 2014. Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecology Letters 17 (7): 866–880.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stevens, A.W., and J.R. Lacy. 2012. The influence of wave energy and sediment transport on seagrass distribution. Estuaries and Coasts 35 (1): 92–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9435-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielborger, M.C. Wichmann, M. Schwager, and F. Jeltsch. 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31 (1): 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 of the United States of America 106 (30): 12377–12381.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905620106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitfield, A.K. 2017. The role of seagrass meadows, mangrove forests, salt marshes and reed beds as nursery areas and food sources for fishes in estuaries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 27 (1): 75–110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9454-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang, S., E.E. Wheat, M.J. Horwith, and J.L. Ruesink. 2013. Relative impacts of natural stressors on life history traits underlying resilience of intertidal eelgrass (Zostera marina L.). Estuaries and Coasts 36 (5): 1006–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9609-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yeager, L.A., D.A. Keller, T.R. Burns, A.S. Pool, and F.J. Fodrie. 2016. Threshold effects of habitat fragmentation on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology 97 (8): 2157–2166.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Aquatic Assessment and Monitoring TeamWashington Department of Natural Resources, Aquatics DivisionOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations