, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 422–440 | Cite as

Ecological Values of Shallow-Water Habitats: Implications for the Restoration of Disturbed Ecosystems

  • Cary B. Lopez
  • James E. Cloern
  • Tara S. Schraga
  • Amy J. Little
  • Lisa V. Lucas
  • Janet K. Thompson
  • Jon R. Burau


A presumed value of shallow-habitat enhanced pelagic productivity derives from the principle that in nutrient-rich aquatic systems phytoplankton growth rate is controlled by light availability, which varies inversely with habitat depth. We measured a set of biological indicators across the gradient of habitat depth within the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (California) to test the hypothesis that plankton biomass, production, and pelagic energy flow also vary systematically with habitat depth. Results showed that phytoplankton biomass and production were only weakly related to phytoplankton growth rates whereas other processes (transport, consumption) were important controls. Distribution of the invasive clam Corbicula fluminea was patchy, and heavily colonized habitats all supported low phytoplankton biomass and production and functioned as food sinks. Surplus primary production in shallow, uncolonized habitats provided potential subsidies to neighboring recipient habitats. Zooplankton in deeper habitats, where grazing exceeded phytoplankton production, were likely supported by significant fluxes of phytoplankton biomass from connected donor habitats. Our results provide three important lessons for ecosystem science: (a) in the absence of process measurements, derived indices provide valuable information to improve our mechanistic understanding of ecosystem function and to benefit adaptive management strategies; (b) the benefits of some ecosystem functions are displaced by water movements, so the value of individual habitat types can only be revealed through a regional perspective that includes connectedness among habitats; and (c) invasive species can act as overriding controls of habitat function, adding to the uncertainty of management outcomes.


restoration shallow-water habitat pelagic production food web freshwater ecosystems 


  1. Alpine AE, Cloern JE. 1992. Trophic interactions and direct physical effects control phytoplankton biomass and production in an estuary. Limnol Oceanogr 37:946–955Google Scholar
  2. Andersen T, Hessen DO. 1991. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus content of freshwater zooplankton. Limnol Oceanogra 36:807–814Google Scholar
  3. Atwater BF, Conard SG, Dowden JN, Hedel CW, MacDonald RL, Savage W. 1979. History, landforms, and vegetation of the estuary’s tidal marshes. In: Conomos TJ (eds). San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. San Francisco (CA): Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp 347–385Google Scholar
  4. Bennett WA, Moyle PB. 1996. Where have all the fishes gone? Interactive factors producing fish declines in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. In: Hollibaugh JT (eds). San Francisco Bay: The ecosystem. San Francisco (CA): Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp 519–542Google Scholar
  5. Bogdan KG, Gilbert JJ. 1982. Seasonal patterns of feeding by natural populations of Keratella, Polyarthra, and Bosmina: clearance rates, selectivities, and contributions to community grazing. Limnol and Oceanogr 27:918–934Google Scholar
  6. Bottrell HH, Duncan A, Gliwicz ZM, Grygierek E, Herzig A, Hillbricht-Ilkowska A, Kurasawa H, and others. 1976. A review of some problems in zooplankton production studies. Nor J Zool 24:419–456Google Scholar
  7. Brett MT, Müller-Navarra DC, Park SK. 2000. Empirical analysis of the effect of phosphorus limitation on algal food quality for freshwater zooplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 45:1564–1575Google Scholar
  8. Brown LR. 2003. Will tidal wetland restoration enhance populations of native fishes? In: Brown LR, Ed. Issues in San Francisco Estuary tidal wetlands restoration. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science (online serial). 1(1): Article 2Google Scholar
  9. CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. CALFED Bay-Delta Program strategic plan for ecosystem restoration. Sacramento (CA): CALFED Bay-Delta ProgramGoogle Scholar
  10. CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2001. Ecosystem restoration program draft stage 1 implementation plan. Sacramento (CA): CALFED Bay-Delta ProgramGoogle Scholar
  11. California Bay-Delta Authority. 2004. Ecosystem restoration program multi-year program plan. Sacramento (CA): CALFED Bay-Delta ProgramGoogle Scholar
  12. Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Raymond PA, Strayer DL, Pace ML, Findlay SE, Fischer DT. 1997. Zebra mussel invasion in a large, turbid river: phytoplankton response to increased grazing. Ecology 78:588–602Google Scholar
  13. Clark TW, Zaunbrecher D. 1987. The greater Yellowstone ecosystem: the ecosystem concept in natural policy and management. Renewable Resour 5(3):8–16Google Scholar
  14. Cloern JE. 1982. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in south San Francisco Bay? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9:191–202Google Scholar
  15. Cloern JE, Dufford R. 2005. Phytoplankton community ecology: principles applied in San Francisco Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 285:11–28Google Scholar
  16. Cloern JE, Cole BE, Wong RLJ, Alpine AE. 1985. Temporal dynamics of estuarine phytoplankton: a case study of San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129:153–176Google Scholar
  17. Cloern JE, Grenz C, Lucas LV. 1995. An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyll:Carbon ratio—the conversion factor between productivity and growth rate. Limnol Oceanogr 40:1313–1321Google Scholar
  18. Cohen AN, Carlton JT. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Crisp DJ. 1971. Energy flow measurements. In: Holme NA, McIntyre AD, Ed. Methods of the study of marine benthos. International Biological Programme handbook no. 16. Oxford (UK): Blackwell. p 197–279Google Scholar
  20. Dumont H, Van de Velde I, Dumont S. 1975. The dry weight estimate of biomass in a selection of cladocera, copepoda and rotifera from the plankton, periphyton and benthos of continental waters. Oecologia (Berlin) 19:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engelhardt KAM, Ritchie ME. 2001. Effects of macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem functioning and services. Nature 411:687–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Feyrer F, Herbold B, Matern SA, Moyle PB. 2003. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish assemblage: consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco estuary. Environ Biol Fishes 67:277–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer HB, List EJ, Imberger J, Koh RCY, Brooks NH. 1979. Mixing in inland and coastal waters. New York: Academic Press. 483 p.Google Scholar
  24. Foe C, Knight A. 1986. A thermal energy budget for juvenile Corbicula fluminea. Am Malacol Bull Sp edn. no. 2; p 143–150Google Scholar
  25. Grimaldo LF, Miller RE, Peregrin CM, Hymanson ZP. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of native and alien ichthyoplankton in three habitat types of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In: Feyrer F, Brown LR, Orsi JJ, Eds. Early life history of fishes in the San Francisco Estuary and watershed. American Fisheries Society Symposium 39. p 81–96Google Scholar
  26. Hager SW. 1994. Dissolved nutrient and suspended particulate matter data for the San Francisco Bay Estuary, California. October 1991 through November 1993. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-471. p 53Google Scholar
  27. Harris RP, Paffenhöfer GA. 1976. The effect of food concentration on cumulative ingestion and growth efficiency of two small marine planktonic copepods. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 56:875–88Google Scholar
  28. Holl KD, Crone EE, Schultz CB. 2003. Landscape restoration: moving from generalities to methodologies. BioScience 53:491–502Google Scholar
  29. Holling CS. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  30. Jack JD, Thorp JH. 2000. Effects of the benthic suspension feeder Dreissena polymorpha on zooplankton in a large river. Fresh Biol 44:569–79Google Scholar
  31. Jacobs KL, Luoma SN, Taylor KA. 2003. CALFED: An experiment in science and decision making. Environment 45(1):30–41Google Scholar
  32. Jassby AD, Cloern JE, Cole BE. 2002. Annual primary production: patterns and mechanisms of change in a nutrient-rich tidal ecosystem. Limnol and Oceanogr 47:698–712Google Scholar
  33. Jeppesen E, Jensen JP, Jensen C, Faafeng B, Hessen DO, Søndergaard M, Lauridsen T, and others. 2003. The impact of nutrient state and lake depth on top–down control in the pelagic zone of lakes: a study of 466 lakes from the temperate zone to the arctic. Ecosystems 6:313–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kimmerer WJ. 2002. Effects of freshwater flow on abundance of estuarine organisms: physical effects of trophic linkages? Mar Ecol Progr Ser 243:39–55Google Scholar
  35. Kimmerer WJ, Orsi JJ. 1996. Changes in the zooplankton of the San Francisco Bay Estuary since the introduction of the clam Potamocorbula amurensis. In: Hollibaugh JT, editor. San Francisco Bay: the ecosystem. San Francisco (CA): Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science. p 403–24Google Scholar
  36. Knowles N. 2002. Natural and management influences on freshwater inflows and salinity in the San Francisco Estuary at monthly to interannual scales. Water Resour Res 38:25-1–25-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lucas LV, Cloern JE, Thompson JK, Monsen NE. 2002. Functional variability of habitats within the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta: restoration implications. Ecol Appl 12:1528–1547Google Scholar
  38. Monsen N. 2001. A study of subtidal transport in Suisun Bay and the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California. [Dissertation]. Stanford, (CA): Stanford University. p 344Google Scholar
  39. Monsen NE, Cloern JE, Lucas LV, Monismith SG. 2002. A comment on the use of flushing time, residence time, and age as transport time scales. Limnol Oceanogr 47:1545–1553Google Scholar
  40. Moulton TP. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in conservation of rivers and streams. Aquatic Conservation: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 9:573–578Google Scholar
  41. Müller-Navarra DC, Brett MT, Park SC, Chandra S, Ballantyne AP, Zorita E, Goldman CR. 2004. Unsaturated fatty acid content in seston and tropho-dynamic coupling in lakes. Nature 427:69–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Müller-Solger AB, Jassby AD, Müller-Navarra DC. 2002. Nutritional quality of food resources for zooplankton (Daphnia) in a tidal freshwater system (Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta). Limnol Oceanogr 47:774–777Google Scholar
  43. Mullin MM, Brooks ER. 1967. Laboratory culture, growth rate, and feeding behavior of a planktonic marine copepod. Limnol Oceanogr 12:657–666Google Scholar
  44. Nichols FH, Thompson JK, Schemel LE. 1990. Remarkable invasion of San Francisco Bay (California, USA) by the Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis. II Displacement of a former community. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 66:95–101Google Scholar
  45. Noss RF. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700–706Google Scholar
  46. O’Riordan CA, Monismith SG, Koseff JR. 1995. The effect of bivalve excurrent jet dynamics on mass transfer in a benthic boundary layer. Limnol Oceanogr 40:330–344Google Scholar
  47. Orsi JJ, Mecum WL. 1996. Food limitation as the probable cause of a long-term decline in the abundance of Neomysis mercedis the opposum shrimp in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary. In: Hollibaugh JT, Ed. San Francisco Bay: the ecosystem. San Francisco (CA): Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science. p 375–401Google Scholar
  48. Pace ML, Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF. 1999. Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 14:483–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Parsons TR, Maita Y, Lalli CM. 1984. A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. New York: Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Petersen JE, Kemp MW, Bartleson R, Boynton WR, Chen C-C, Cornwell JC, Gardner RH, and others. 2003. Multiscale experiments in coastal ecology: improving realism and advancing theory. BioScience 53:1181–1197Google Scholar
  51. Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD. 1997. Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: The dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reiners WA, Driese KL. 2001. The propogation of ecological influences through heterogeneous environmental space. BioScience 51:939–50Google Scholar
  53. Ringold PL, Alegria J, Czaplewski RL, Mulder BS, Tolle T, Burnett K. 1996. Adaptive monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:745–7Google Scholar
  54. Roe E, Eeten M. 2002. Reconciling ecosystem rehabilitation and service reliability mandates in large technical systems: findings and implications of three major US ecosystem management initiatives for managing human-dominated aquatic–terrestrial ecosystems. Ecosystems 5:509–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruhl CA, Simpson MR. 2005. Computation of discharge using the index-velocity method in tidally affected areas. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5004. p 34Google Scholar
  56. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, and others. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schemel LE, Sommer TR, Müller-Solger AB, Harrell WC. 2003. Hydrologic variability, water chemistry, and phytoplankton biomass in a large floodplain of the Sacramento River, CA, USA. Hydrobiologia 513:129–139Google Scholar
  58. Sobczak WV, Cloern JE, Jassby AD, Müller-Solger AB. 2002. Bioavailability of organic matter in a highly disturbed estuary: the role of detrital and algal resources. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 99:8101–8105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sommer TR, Nobriga ML, Harrell WC, Batham W, Kimmerer WJ. 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Cana J Fish Aquat Sci 58:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Starkweather PL. 1980. Aspects of the feeding behavior and trophic ecology of suspension-feeding rotifers. Hydrobiologia 73:63–72Google Scholar
  61. Uye S. 1982. Length–weight relationship of important zooplankton from the inland Sea of Japan. J Oceanogr Soc Jpn 38:149–158Google Scholar
  62. Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Westbrooks R. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am Sci 84:468–78Google Scholar
  63. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melilo JM. 1997. Human domination of the Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walters CJ. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  65. Walters CJ, Gunderson L, Holling CS. 1992. Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades. Ecol Appl 2:189–202Google Scholar
  66. Walters RA, Heston C. 1982. Removing tidal-period variations from time-series data using low-pass digital filters. J Phys Oceanogr 12(1):112–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cary B. Lopez
    • 1
  • James E. Cloern
    • 1
  • Tara S. Schraga
    • 1
  • Amy J. Little
    • 1
  • Lisa V. Lucas
    • 1
  • Janet K. Thompson
    • 1
  • Jon R. Burau
    • 2
  1. 1.US Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.US Geological SurveySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations