Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ecological Signatures of Anthropogenically Altered Tidal Exchange in Estuarine Ecosystems

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the most conspicuous anthropogenic disturbances to estuaries worldwide has been the alteration of freshwater and tidal influence through the construction of water control structures (dikes, tide gates, culverts). Few studies have rigorously compared the responses of differing groups of organisms that serve as contrasting conservation targets to such anthropogenic disturbances in estuarine ecosystems. Elkhorn Slough in central California includes a spectrum of tidally restricted habitats behind water control structures and habitats experiencing full tidal exchange. To assess community composition for several different taxa in habitats with varying tidal exchange, we employed a variety of field approaches and synthesized results from several different studies. Overall, we found that communities at sites with moderately restricted tidal exchange were fairly similar to those with full tidal exchange, but those with extremely restricted tidal exchange were markedly different from other categories. These differences in community composition are likely the result of several factors, including restricted movement due to physical barriers, differences in water quality characteristics, and differences in habitat structure. Indeed, in this study, we found that water quality characteristics strongly vary with tidal restriction and may strongly influence patterns of species presence or absence. We also found that different conservation targets showed contrasting responses to variation in tidal exchange. Full exchange appears to favor native oysters, commercially valuable flatfish, migratory shorebirds, and site-level biodiversity. Minimal tidal exchange due to water control structures supports a suite of estuarine endemics (including the tidewater goby and California brackish snail) not represented elsewhere and minimizes invasions by non-native marine species. Altogether, our results suggest that total estuary-wide biodiversity may be enhanced with a mosaic of tidal exchange regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Able, K.W. 2005. A re-examination of fish estuarine dependence: Evidence for connectivity between estuarine and ocean habitats. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attrill, M.J. 2002. A testable linear model for diversity trends in estuaries. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 262–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R.S.K. 1989. What, if anything, is a brackish-water fauna? Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 80: 235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, M.W., K.L.J. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScience 51: 633–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, N.G., and K.W. Bruland. 2000. Diel biogeochemical cycling in a hyperventilating shallow estuarine environment. Estuaries 23: 177–187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borror, D.J., and R.E. White. 1998. A field guide to the insects of America and north of Mexico. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumans, R.M., D.M. Burdick, and M. Dionne. 2002. Modeling habitat change in salt marshes after tidal restoration. Restoration Ecology 10: 543–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.A. 2006. Using the chemical composition of otoliths to evaluate the nursery role of estuaries for English sole Pleuronectes vetulus populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 206: 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulger, A.J., B.P. Hayden, M.E. Monaco, D.M. Nelson, and M.G. McCormick-Ray. 1993. Biologically-based estuarine salinity zones derived from a multivariate analysis. Estuaries 16: 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdick, D.M., M. Dionne, R.M. Boumans, and F.T. Short. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caffrey, J., M. Brown, W.B. Tyler, and M. Silberstein. 2002. Changes in a California estuary: A profile of Elkhorn Slough. Moss Landing, CA: Elkhorn Slough Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, J.C. 2001. Hydrology and substrate. In Handbook for restoring tidal wetlands, ed. J.B. Zedler, 89–113. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K.R., and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER v. 6: User Manual/Tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Washington, DC: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, F.C., and S.L. Williams. 2002. Overexploiting marine ecosystem engineers: Potential consequences for biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 40–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connors, S. 2003. Shore bird distribution in a changing environment: Seasonal patterns at Elkhorn Slough. California: San Jose State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Leeuw, J., L.P. Apon, P.M.J. Herman, W. de Munck, and W.G. Beeftink. 1994. The response of salt marsh vegetation to tidal reduction caused by the Oosterschelde storm–surge barrier. Hydrobiologia 282/283: 335–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar, G.J., N.S. Barrett, D.J. Graddon, and P.R. Last. 2000. The conservation significance of estuaries: A classification of Tasmanian estuaries using ecological, physical and demographic attributes as a case study. Biological Conservation 92: 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmett, R.L., R. Llanso, J. Newton, R.M. Thom, M. Hornberger, C. Morgan, C. Levings, A. Copping, and P. Fishman. 2000. Geographic signatures of North American west coast estuaries. Estuaries 23: 765–792.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, P.G. 1999. Determining the ‘health’ of estuaries: Priorities for ecological research. Australian Journal of Ecology 24: 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannico, G.R., and J.A. Souder. 2004. The effects of tide gates on estuarine habitats and migratory fish. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant Oregon State Univeristy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenyer, R., C.D.L. Orme, S.F. Jackson, G.H. Thomas, R.G. Davies, T.J. Davies, K.E. Jones, V.A. Olson, R.S. Ridgely, P.C. Rasmussen, T. Ding, P.M. Bennett, T.M. Blackburn, K.J. Gaston, J.L. Gittleman, and I.P.F. Owens. 2006. Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates. Nature 444: 93–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grosholz, E. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of coastal invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C.R., D.B. Jensen, L.L. Valutis, K.H. Redford, M.L. Shaffer, J.M. Scott, J.V. Baumgartner, J.V. Higgins, M.W. Beck, and M.G. Anderson. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: Putting conservation science into practice. BioScience 52: 499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiman, K.W. 2006. Hard substrates as a limiting resource structuring invaded communities within a central California estuary. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K.K., C.A. Simenstad, D.L. Higley, and D.L. Bottom. 1990. Community structure distribution and standing stock of benthos epibenthos and plankton in the Columbia River Estuary. Progress in Oceanography 25: 211–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, M.G. 1985. Contributions to our knowledge of Tryonia imitator (Pilsbry 1899). California: San Francisco State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennish, M.J. 2002. Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environmental Conservation 29: 78–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, M.X. 2004. Fishing down the coast: Historical expansion and collapse of oyster fisheries along continental margins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101: 13096–13099.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, C.J. 1994. Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. 4New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E.J. 2001. Coastal wetlands—Emergent marshes. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune, B., and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D.J., and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, M., S. Olenin, and E. Leppakoski. 2005. Are invasive species most successful in habitats of low native species richness across European brackish water seas? Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 738–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J.A., and C.L. Hogue. 1979. California insects. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, S.P., C.H. Peterson, R.R. Christian, E. Sullivan, M.J. Powers, M.J. Bishop, and C.P. Buzzelli. 2005. Effects of eutrophication on bottom habitat and prey resources of demersal fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raposa, K.B. 2002. Early responses of fishes and crustaceans to restoration of a tidally restricted New England salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 10: 665–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raposa, K.B., and C.T. Roman. 2003. Using gradients in tidal restriction to evaluate nekton community responses to salt marsh restoration. Estuaries 26: 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redford, K.H., P. Coppolillo, E.W. Sanderson, G.A.B. Da Fonseca, E. Dinerstein, C. Groves, G. Mace, S. Maginnis, R.S. Mittermeier, R. Noss, D. Olson, J.G. Robinson, A. Vedder, and M. Wright. 2003. Mapping the conservation landscape. Conservation Biology 17: 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remane, A. 1934. Die Brackwasserfauna. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft 36: 34–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C.T., W.A. Niering, and R.S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8: 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C.T., K.B. Raposa, S.C. Adamowicz, M.-J. James-Pirri, and J.G. Catena. 2002. Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 10: 450–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozas, L.P., and T.J. Minello. 1999. Effects of structural marsh management on fishery species and other nekton before and during a spring drawdown. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7: 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanzone, S., and A. McElroy. 1998. Ecological impacts and evaluation criteria for the use of structures in marsh management. EPA-SAB-EPEC-98-003. Environmental Protection Agency.

  • Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., and J.T. Carlton. 1975. Light’s manual: Intertidal invertebrates of the central California coast. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocks, K.I., and J.F. Grassle. 2003. Benthic macrofaunal communities in partially impounded salt marshes in Delaware: Comparisons with natural marshes and responses to sediment exposure. Estuaries 26: 777–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, S., Y. Cai, and Y. Tian. 2003. Salt marsh vegetation change after a short-term tidal restriction in the Changjiang estuary. Wetlands 23: 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, C.C., J.L. Nelson, C. Maslow, and T. Stein. 1989. Biology and distribution of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae) of California. No. 404. Los Angeles, CA: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triplehorn, C.A., and N.F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong’s introduction to the study of insects. 7Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, E., and K. Wasson. 2005. Historical ecology of a central California estuary: 150 years of habitat change. Estuaries 28: 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos, P., E. Meelis, and W.J. Ter Keurs. 2000. A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment 61: 317–344.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wasson, K., C.J. Zabin, L. Bedinger, M.C. Diaz, and J.S. Pearse. 2001. Biological invasions of estuaries without international shipping: The importance of intraregional transport. Biological Conservation 102: 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasson, K., K. Fenn, and J.S. Pearse. 2005. Habitat differences in marine invasions of central California. Biological Invasions 7: 935–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, R.E. 1998. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.B., and M.K. Orr. 2002. Physical evolution of restored breached levee salt marshes in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Restoration Ecology 10: 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, W.J. 1999. Exotic invaders of the meso-oligohaline zone of estuaries in the Netherlands: Why are there so many? Helgolaender Meeresuntersuchungen 52: 393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, M., J. Geerstema, E.R. Chang, R.M. Veeneklaas, P.D. Carey, and J.P. Bakker. 2004. Astroturf seed traps for studying hydrochory. Functional Ecology 18: 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoklavich, M.M., G.M. Cailliet, D.S. Osman, J.P. Barry, and D.C. Lindquist. 2002. Fishes. In Changes in a California estuary: A profile of Elkhorn Slough, eds. J. Caffrey, M. Brown, W. B. Tyler, and M. Silberstein, 163–185. Moss Landing, CA: Elkhorn Slough Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G.C., I.C. Potter, G.A. Hyndes, and S. De Lestang. 1997. The ichthyofauna of an intermittently open estuary: Implications of bar breaching and low salinities on faunal composition. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 45: 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavaleta, E.S., R.J. Hobbs, and H.A. Mooney. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 454–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B., J.C. Callaway, and G. Sullivan. 2001. Declining biodiversity: Why species matter and how their functions might be restored in Californian tidal marshes. BioScience 51: 1005–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to many colleagues who facilitated this research. M. McNicholas and many volunteers assisted with fish and crab surveys. J. Haskins and K. Meyer provided critical water quality data. E. Van Dyke generously created Fig. 1 and provided coordinates for Table 1. S. Fork, P. Slattery, and various experts at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center assisted with taxonomy. G. and J. Wasson provided instrumental support for the writing of the manuscript, and B. Peichel provided thoughtful suggestions. Funding was provided by grants to the Elkhorn Slough Foundation on behalf of the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Estuarine Reserve Division and by a contract from the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation through the Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network (SIMoN) program at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, 1700 Elkhorn Road, Watsonville, CA, 95076, USA

    Amy F. Ritter, Kerstin Wasson, Rikke K. Preisler & Andrea Woolfolk

  2. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA

    Amy F. Ritter, Kerstin Wasson & Rikke K. Preisler

  3. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA, 93940, USA

    Steve I. Lonhart

  4. Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA

    Katie A. Griffith

  5. Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, CA, 95039, USA

    Sarah Connors

  6. Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA, 93950, USA

    Kimberly W. Heiman

Authors
  1. Amy F. Ritter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerstin Wasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steve I. Lonhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rikke K. Preisler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Woolfolk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katie A. Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sarah Connors
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kimberly W. Heiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Wasson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ritter, A.F., Wasson, K., Lonhart, S.I. et al. Ecological Signatures of Anthropogenically Altered Tidal Exchange in Estuarine Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 31, 554–571 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9044-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9044-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation