Wetlands

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 449–459

Informing Olympia Oyster Restoration: Evaluation of Factors That Limit Populations in a California Estuary

Original Paper

Abstract

The goal of this investigation was to inform restoration strategies by determining which factors are most important in limiting Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) distribution and abundance at a Pacific coast estuary, Elkhorn Slough in central California, where Olympia oysters are currently extremely rare but were formerly abundant. An array of mensurative experiments and correlative analyses were used to examine the role of potential limiting factors. Absence of oysters was associated with symptoms of eutrophication, including elevated nutrient concentrations and turbidity. Oysters were also absent from all sites where water control structures resulted in minimal tidal exchange. Predation and competition did not appear to play a major role in surveyed oyster populations above Mean Lower Low Water but at lower elevations oysters were heavily fouled by non-native species. In most sites oysters were found only on large artificial substrates; survival on small natural hard substrates was apparently precluded by burial by fine sediments. Restoring more natural ecosystem processes by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs, increasing tidal exchange to areas behind water control structures, and preventing establishment of new non-native species would benefit Olympia oysters as well as support broader ecosystem-based management goals.

Keywords

Ecosystem-based management Elkhorn Slough Ostrea lurida Water quality 

References

  1. Baker P (1995) Review of ecology and fishery of the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida with annotated bibliography. Journal of Shellfish Research 14:501–518Google Scholar
  2. Barrett EM (1963) The California oyster industry. California Department of Fish and Game, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop MJ, Peterson CH (2006) Direct effects of physical stress can be counteracted by indirect benefits: oyster growth on a tidal elevation gradient. Oecologia 147:426–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Breitburg DL, Coen LD, Luckenbach MW, Mann R, Posey M, Wesson JA (2000) Oyster reef restoration: convergence of harvest and conservation strategies. Journal of Shellfish Research 19:371–377Google Scholar
  5. Brumbaugh RD, Beck MW, Coen LD, Craig L, Hicks P (2006) A practitioner’s guide to the design and monitoring of shellfish restoration projects: an ecosystem services approach. The Nature ConservancyGoogle Scholar
  6. Caffrey JM, Brown M, Tyler WB, Silberstein M (eds) (2002) Changes in a California estuary: a profile of Elkhorn Slough. Elkhorn Slough Foundation, Moss LandingGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen NL et al (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER (Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research) v. 6. PRIMER-E Ltd., PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. PRIMER-E Ltd., PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Coen LD, Brumbaugh RD, Bushek D, Grizzle R, Luckenbach MW, Posey MH, Powers SP, Tolley SG (2007) Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 341:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook AE, Shaffer JA, Dumbauld BR, Kauffman BE (2000) A plan for rebuilding stocks of Olympia oysters (Ostreola conchaphila, Carpenter 1857) in Washington State. Journal of Shellfish Research 19:409–412Google Scholar
  12. Emmett RL, Llanso R, Newton J, Thom RM, Hornberger M, Morgan C, Levings C, Copping A, Fishman P (2000) Geographic signatures of North American West Coast estuaries. Estuaries 23:765–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grosholz E, Moore J, Zabin C, Attoe S, Obernolte R (2008) Planning services for native oyster restoration in San Francisco Bay. Report to the California Coastal Conservancy (Agreement 05–134)Google Scholar
  14. Harris HE (2004) Distribution and limiting factors of Ostrea conchaphila in San Francisco Bay. M. S. Thesis, San Francisco State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopkins AE (1936) Ecological observations on spawning and early larval development in the Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida). Ecology 17:551–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hornberger MI (1991) Paleoenvironment of Elkhorn Slough and surrounding wetland habitats: a geological study using an ecological approach. M.S. Thesis, San Jose State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones TL (2002) Archeology and prehistory. In: Caffrey JC, Brown M, Tyler WB, Silberstein M (eds) Changes in a California estuary: a profile of Elkhorn Slough. Elkhorn Slough Foundation, Moss Landing, pp 53–91Google Scholar
  18. Kennish MJ (2002) Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environmental Conservation 29:78–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kimbro DL, Grosholz ED (2006) Disturbance influences oyster community richness and evenness, but not diversity. Ecology 87:2378–2388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirby MX (2004) Fishing down the coast: historical expansion and collapse of oyster fisheries along continental margins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:13096–13099CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirby MX, Miller HM (2005) Response of a benthic suspension feeder (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin) to three centuries of anthropogenic eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 62:679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luckenbach MW, Mann R, Wesson JA (eds) (1999) Oyster reef habitat restoration: a synopsis and synthesis of approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester PointGoogle Scholar
  23. MacGinitie GE (1935) Ecological aspects of a California marine estuary. American Midland Naturalist 16:629–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mann R, Powell EN (2007) Why oyster restoration goals in the Chesapeake bay are not and probably cannot be achieved. Journal of Shellfish Research 26:905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minchinton TE, McKenzie LA (2008) Nutrient enrichment affects recruitment of oysters and barnacles in a mangrove forest. Marine Ecology Progress Series 354:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NOAA Restoration Center (ed) (2007) West Coast native oyster restoration: 2006 workshop proceedings (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/publications/tech_glines.html), U.S. Department of Commerce
  27. Raposa KB, Roman CT (2003) Using gradients in tidal restriction to evaluate nekton community responses to salt marsh restoration. Estuaries 26:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritter AF, Wasson K, Lonhart SI, Preisler RK, Woolfolk A, Griffith KA, Connors S, Heiman K (2008) Ecological signatures of anthropogenically altered tidal exchange in estuarine ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 31:554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16:1469–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trimble AC, Ruesink JL, Dumbauld BR (2009) Factors preventing the recovery of a historically overexploited shellfish species, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864. Journal of Shellfish Research 28:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Dyke E, Wasson K (2005) Historical ecology of a central California estuary: 150 years of habitat change. Estuaries 28:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wasson K, Fenn K, Pearse JS (2005) Habitat differences in marine invasions of central California. Biological Invasions 7:935–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research ReserveWatsonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations