Marine Biology

, 164:81 | Cite as

Changes in ecosystem engineers: the effects of kelp forest type on currents and benthic assemblages in Kachemak Bay, Alaska

  • Dominic HondoleroEmail author
  • Matthew S. Edwards
Original paper


In many temperate, rocky-reef coastal ecosystems, kelp forests modify alongshore currents, impact invertebrate settlement, and regulate understory algal abundances. Along the southern coasts of Alaska, in particular, two species of canopy-forming kelps with dissimilar morphologies, Nereocystis luetkeana and Eualaria fistulosa, co-occur but vary in their distributions and patterns of abundance, with one species often replacing the other at given sites in subsequent years. As a result, their differences in morphology may affect patterns of current flow through the forests, which could have strong impacts on invertebrate settlement and benthic diversity, particularly in Kachemak Bay, Alaska (59° 36′33ʺN, 151° 20′51ʺW), which experiences large tidal fluctuations resulting in strong alongshore currents. In this study, significant differences in current reductions were observed between the two kelp forest types within Kachemak Bay, but these reductions were small compared to the natural spatiotemporal variability of currents within the bay, and they were primarily limited to the upper few meters of the water column where the two species exhibit their greatest differences in morphology. Consequently, invertebrate settlement and abundance differed between the two kelp forest types as well as among study sites within the bay. In addition, there were differences observed in the composition and abundance of understory algae between the two forest types, which were presumably due to differences in shading abilities of the dominant kelps. Together, our results suggest that future changes in the distribution and abundances of these two kelp forest types may result in corresponding changes in hydrodynamic conditions within the forests, and thereby impact invertebrate and benthic algal assemblages.


Forest Type Pacific Decadal Oscillation Ecosystem Engineer Kelp Forest Algal Assemblage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Renato Borras-Chavez for his assistance with fieldwork in Kachemak Bay, AK. We are grateful to Kris Holderied for her support and for reviewing early versions of this manuscript. We thank the NOAA and University of Alaska Fairbanks Kasitsna Bay Laboratory facility staff for logistical support, providing laboratory space, and supporting boating and diving operations. This research was funded by a scholarship from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Education Graduate Sciences Program. The views herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use by the United States government.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

227_2017_3111_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)


  1. Abelson A, Denny M (1997) Settlement of marine organisms in flow. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:317–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abookire AA, Piatt JF, Robards MD (2000) Nearshore fish distributions in an Alaskan estuary in relation to stratification, temperature, and salinity. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 51:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alongi DM (2002) Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environ Conserv 29:331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2003) Generalized discriminant analysis based on distances. Aust N Z J Stat 45:301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson MJ, ter Braak CJF (2003) Permutation tests for multifactorial analysis of variance. J Statist Comput Simul 73:85–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Vlarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs TW, Dunne T, Martinelli LA (2004) Natural controls and human impacts on stream nutrient concentrations in a deforested region of the Brazilian Amazon basin. Biogeochemistry 68:227–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodkin JL (1988) Effects of kelp forest removal on associated fish assemblages in central California. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 117:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr MH (1994) Effects of macroalgal dynamics on recruitment of a temperate reef fish. Ecology 75:1320–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark RP, Edwards MS, Foster MS (2004) Effects of shade from multiple kelp canopies on an understory algal assemblage. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 267:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayton PK (1972) A new species of Platyctenean ctenophore, Lyroceteis flavorpallidus, sp. nov., from McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Can J Zool 50:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dayton PK (1975) Experimental evaluation of ecological dominance in a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecol Monogr 45:137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dayton PK (1985) Kelp forest ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:215–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dayton PK, Currie V, Gerrodette T, Keller BD, Rosenthal R, Ven Tresca D (1984) Patch dynamics and stability of some California kelp communities. Ecol Monogr 54:253–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deiman M (2008) Ecological changes of the marine communities of Kachemak Bay, Alaska from 1976 to 2007. B.S. thesis, University of Alaska FairbanksGoogle Scholar
  16. Dudas SE, Rilov G, Tyburczy J, Menge BA (2009) Linking larval abundance, onshore supply and settlement using instantaneous versus integrated methods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 387:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards MS (1998) Effects of long-term kelp canopy exclusion on the abundance of the annual alga Desmarestia ligulata. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 228:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards MS, Hernández-Carmona G (2005) Delayed recovery of giant kelp near its southern range limit in the North Pacific following El Niño. Mar Biol 147:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Barton DC, Coulburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Van Holle B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaines SD, Roughgarden J (1987) Fish in offshore kelp forests affect recruitment to intertidal barnacle populations. Science 235:479–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaylord B, Denny MW, Koehl MAR (2003) Modulation of wave forces on kelp canopies by alongshore currents. Limnol Oceanogr 48:860–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaylord B, Rosman J, Reed D, Koseff JR, Fram J, MacIntyre S, Arkema K, McDonald C, Brzezinski MA, Largier JL, Monismith SG, Raimondi PT, Mardian B (2007) Spatial patterns of flow and their modification within and around a giant kelp forest. Limnol Oceanogr 52:1838–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graham MH (2004) Effects of local deforestation on the diversity and structure of southern California giant kelp forest food webs. Ecosystems 7:341–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham MH, Edwards MS (2001) Statistical significance versus fit: estimating the importance of individual factors in ecological analysis of variance. Oikos 93:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holbrook SJ, Carr MH, Schmitt RJ, Coyer JA (1990) Effect of giant kelp on local abundance of reef fishes: the importance of ontogenetic resource requirements. Bull Mar Sci 47:104–114Google Scholar
  26. Jackson GA, Winant CD (1983) Effect of a kelp forest on coastal currents. Cont Shelf Res 2:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones GP, McCormick MI, Srinivasan M, Eagle JV (2004) Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8251–8253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krumhansl KA, Okamoto DK, Rassweiler A, Novak M, Bolton JJ, Cavanaugh KC, Connell SDf, Johnson CR, Konar B, Ling SD, Micheli F, Norderhaug K, Pérez-Matus A, Sousa-Pinto I, Reed D, Salomon AK, Shears NT, Wernberg T, Anderson RJ, Barrett N, Buschmann AH, Carr MH, Caselle JE, Derrien-Courtel S, Edgar GJ, Edwards MS, Estes J, Goodwin C, Kenner MC, Kushner DJ, Moy FE, Nunn J, Steneck RS, Vásquez JA, Watson J, Witman J, Byrnes JEK (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proc Nat Acad Sci 113:13785–13790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee SY (1999) Tropical mangrove ecology: physical and biotic factors influencing ecosystem structure and function. Aust Ecol 24:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lees DC, Houghton JP, Driskell WB, Erikson DE, Boettcher DE (1979) Ecological studies of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats in lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. Annual report for NOAA/OCSEAP, Dames & Moore, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  32. McGowan JA, Bograd SJ, Lynn RJ, Miller AJ (2003) The biological response to the 1977 regime shift in the California Current. Deep-Sea Res Part II 50:567–2582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McMahon TE, Hartman GF (1989) Influence of cover complexity and current velocity on winter habitat use by juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1551–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller KA, Estes JA (1989) Western range extension for Nereocystis luetkeana in the northern Pacific Ocean. Bot Mar 32:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moring JR (1982) Decrease in stream gravel permeability after clear-cut logging: an indication of intragravel conditions for developing salmonid eggs and alevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Navarette SA, Parrague M (2008) Local and meso-scale patterns of recruitment and abundance of two intertidal crab species that compete for refuges. Mar Biol 155:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. North WJ, Jackson GA, Manley SL 1986. Macrocystis and its environment, knowns and unknowns. Aq Biol 26:9–26.Google Scholar
  38. Palardy JE, Witman JD (2010) Water flow drives diversity by mediating rarity in marine benthic communities. Ecol Lett 14:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peterson CH, Luettich RA Jr, Micheli F, Skilleter GA (2004) Attenuation of water flow inside seagrass canopies of differing structure. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reed DC, Foster MS (1984) The effects of canopy shading on algal recruitment and growth in a giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) forest. Ecology 65:937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reise K (1981) High abundance of small zoobenthos around biogenic structures in tidal sediments of the Wadden Sea. Helgol Mar Res 34:413–425Google Scholar
  42. Rigby PR, Kato T, Riosmena-Rodriguez R (2007) In: Rigby PR, Iken K, Shirayama Y (eds.) Sampling Biodiversity in Coastal Communities: NaGISA Protocols for Seagrass and Macoalgal Habitats. Kyoto University Press, JapanGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosman JH, Koseff JR, Monismith SG, Grover J (2007) A field investigation into the effects of a kelp forest (Macrocystis pyrifera) on coastal hydrodynamics and transport. J Geophy Res Oceans 112C:02016. doi: 10.1029/2005JC003430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruiz-Labourdette D, Nogués-Bravo D, Sáinz Ollero H, Schmitz FD, Pineda FD (2011) Forest composition in Medeterranean mountains s projected to shift along the entire elevational gradient under climate change. J Biogeography 39:162–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schiel DR, Foster MS (2015) The Biology and Ecology of Giant Kelp. University of California Press, OaklandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoch GC, Chenelot H (2004) The role of estuarine hydrodynamics in the distribution of kelp forests in Kachemak Bay, Alaska. J Coast Res 45:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sebens KP (1994) Biodiversity of coral reefs: what are we losing and why? Am Zool 34:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siddon EC, Siddon CE, Stekoll MS (2008) Community level effects of Nereocystis luetkeana in southeastern Alaska. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 361:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Torres-Moye G, Edwards MS, Montaño–Moctezuma GC (2013) Benthic community studies in kelp forest habitats from the Southern California Bight. Cienc Mar 39:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kasitsna Bay LaboratoryNOAA/NOS/CCFHRSeldoviaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations