Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1416–1431 | Cite as

Sediment Accumulation Rates and Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Distributions in the Mesohaline Chesapeake Bay, USA

  • Cindy M. PalinkasEmail author
  • Evamaria W. Koch
Article

Abstract

This study assesses spatial and temporal sedimentological trends in four mesohaline Chesapeake Bay submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitats, two with persistent SAV beds and two with ephemeral SAV beds, to determine their relationship to current and historical sediment characteristics—grain size, organic content, and accumulation rates. In general, grain size is similar among all sites, and subsurface sediment differs from surficial sediment only at one site where a thin surficial sand layer (∼2–3 cm) is present. This thin sand layer is not completely preserved in the longer-term sedimentary record even though it is critical to determining whether the sediment is suitable for SAV. Evidence for nearshore fining, similar to that observed in the deeper waters of the Bay, is present at the site where the shoreline has been hardened suggesting that locations with hardened shorelines limit exchange of coarser (sandy) material between the shore and nearshore environments. Whether the fining trend will continue to a point at which the sediment will become unsuitable for SAV in the future or whether some new type of equilibrium will be reached cannot be addressed with our data. Instead, our data suggest that SAV presence/absence is related to changes in sedimentary characteristics—persistent beds have relatively steady sediment composition, while ephemeral beds have finer sediments due to reduced sand input. Additionally, sediment accumulation rates in the persistent beds are ∼9 mm/year, whereas rates in the ephemeral beds are ∼3 mm/year. Thus, the ephemeral sites highlight two potential sedimentary controls on SAV distribution: the presence of a sufficiently thick surficial sand layer as previously postulated by Wicks (2005) and accumulation rates high enough to bury seeds prior to germination and/or keep up with sea-level rise.

Keywords

Sediment Seagrass SAV Chesapeake Bay Sea-level rise 210Pb Nearshore 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office (award NA07NMF4570344) for funding this study. We also thank Dale Booth for invaluable field and laboratory assistance, as well as Caroline Baumgartner and Taylor Robinson for generating some of the data shown. We gratefully acknowledge the comments of three anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved this manuscript. This is UMCES contribution #4634.

References

  1. Ailstock, M.S., D.J. Shafer, and A.D. Magoun. 2010. Effects of planting depth, sediment grain size, and nutrients on Ruppia maritima and Potamogeton perfoliatus: seedling emergence and growth. Restoration Ecology 18: 574–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleby, P.G., and F. Oldfield. 1978. The calculation of lead-210 dates assuming a constant rate of supply of unsupported 210Pb to the sediment. Catena 5: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, R.R., J.C. Cornwell, W.C. Dennison, and J.C. Stevenson. 2000. Sediment-based reconstruction of submersed aquatic vegetation distribution in the Severn River, a sub-estuary of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Coastal Research 16: 188–195.Google Scholar
  4. Barko, J.W., and R.M. Smart. 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67: 1328–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batiuk, R. A., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, W. C. Dennison, and J. C. Stevenson. 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: A technical synthesis. Report number CBP/TRS-83/92. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point (USA).Google Scholar
  6. Berman, M., J. Herman, K. Nunez, and D. Schatt. 2008. Erosion vulnerability assessment (EVA) and planning tool. Gloucester Point: Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program, Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos, A.R., T.J. Bouma, G.L.J. de Kort, and M.M. van Katwijk. 2007. Ecosystem engineering by annual intertidal seagrass beds: sediment accretion and modification. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 74: 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabaco, S., and R. Santos. 2007. Effects of burial and erosion on the seagrass Zostera noltii. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 340: 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabaco, S., R. Santos, and C.M. Duarte. 2008. The impact of sediment burial and erosion on seagrasses: a review. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 79: 354–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, S.R., and G.S. Brush. 1991. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia. Science 245: 992–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutshall, N.H., I.L. Larsen, and C.R. Olsen. 1983. Direct analysis of 210Pb in sediment samples: self-absorption corrections. Nuclear Instrumentation Methods 206: 309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water-quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Bioscience 43: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and E.W. Koch. 2001. Chapter 18: Sediment geology methods for seagrass habitat. In: Global seagrass research methods, eds. F.T. Short and R.G. Coles, 345–367. Berlin: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Fonseca, M.S., and S.S. Bell. 1998. Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes near Beaufort, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology—Progress Series 171: 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodbred, S.L., and S.A. Kuehl. 1998. Floodplain processes in the Bengal Basin and the storage of Ganges-Brahmaputra river system: an accretion study using 137Cs and 210Pb geochronology. Sedimentary Geology 121: 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kearney, M.S. 1996. Sea-level change during the last thousand years in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Coastal Research 12: 977–983.Google Scholar
  17. Keddy, P.A. 1982. Quantifying within-lake gradients of wave energy: interrelationships of wave energy, substrate particle size, and shoreline plants in Axe Lake, Ontario. Aquatic Botany 14: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemp, W.M. and L. Murray. 2008. Large-scale restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay: a design-with-nature approach. Final report NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. Grant No. NA06NMF4570282.17 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Kerhin, R.T., J.P. Halka, D.V. Wells, E.L. Hennessee, P.J. Blakeslee, N. Zoltan, and R.H. Cuthbertson. 1988. Chesapeake Bay Earth Science Study (CBESS): physical properties of surficial sediments, Chesapeake Bay. Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  20. Kimmel, D.G., W.D. Miller, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, and M.R. Roman. 2009. Estuarine ecosystem response captured using a synoptic climatology. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koch, E.W. 2001. Beyond light: physical, geological, and geochemical parameters as possible submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements. Estuaries 24: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koch, E.W., L.P. Sanford, S.N. Chen, D.J. Shafer and J.M. Smith. 2006. Waves in seagrass systems: review and technical recommendations. US Army Corps of Engineers technical report. Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC TR-06-15.Google Scholar
  23. Koch, E.W., M.S. Ailstock, D.M. Booth, D.J. Shafer, and D. Magoun. 2010. The role of currents and waves in the dispersal of submersed angiosperm seeds and seedlings in Chesapeake Bay. Restoration Ecology 18: 584–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krishnaswami, S., D. Lal, J.M. Martin, and M. Meybeck. 1971. Geochronology of lake sediments. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 11: 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lacouture, R.V., J.M. Johnson, C. Buchanan, and H.G. Marshall. 2006. Phytoplankton index of biotic integrity for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Estuaries and Coasts 29: 598–616.Google Scholar
  26. Leschen, A.S., K.H. Ford, and N.T. Evans. 2010. Successful eelgrass (Zostera marina) restoration in a formerly eutrophic estuary (Boston Harbor) supports the use of a multifaceted watershed approach to mitigating eelgrass loss. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1340–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Livingston, R.J., S.E. McGlynn, and N. Xufeng. 1998. Factors controlling seagrass growth in a gulf coastal system: water and sediment quality and light. Aquatic Botany 60: 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marba, N., and C.M. Duarte. 1994. Growth-response of the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa to experimental burial and erosion. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 107: 307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Maryland Tributary Strategy Choptank River Basin summary report for 1985–2005 data.Google Scholar
  30. Maryland Geological Survey. 2000. Historical shorelines, 1841–1976. Washington, DC: Chesapeake Bay Region of Maryland.Google Scholar
  31. Milliman, J.D., and J.P.M. Syvitski. 1992. Geomorphic tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean - the importance of small mountainous rivers. Journal of Geology 100: 525–544.Google Scholar
  32. Mills, K.E., and M.S. Fonseca. 2003. Mortality and productivity of eelgrass Zostera marina under conditions of experimental burial with two sediment types. Marine Ecology—Progress Series 255: 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore, K.A., R.J. Orth, and J.F. Nowak. 1993. Environmental regulation of seed-germination in Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) in Chesapeake Bay—effects of light, oxygen and sediment burial. Aquatic Botany 45: 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Najjar, R., C. Pyke, M.B. Adams, D. Breitburg, C. Hershner, M. Kemp, R. Howarth, M. Mulholland, M. Paolisso, D. Secor, K. Sellner, D. Wardrop, and R. Wood. 2010. Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 86: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nittrouer, C.A., R.W. Sternberg, R. Carpenter, and J.T. Bennett. 1979. The use of Pb-210 geochronology as a sedimentological tool: application to the Washington continental shelf. Marine Geology 31: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1984. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay—an historical perspective. Estuaries 7: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox. A. Kenne, L.S. Nagey, A. Owens, J.R. Whiting, and A. Serio. 2005. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries and Chincoteague Bay—2004. Final report U.S.E.P.A. (http://vims.edu/bio/sav/sav04).
  38. Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox, J.R. Whiting, L.S. Nagey. A.L. Owens, and A.K. Kenne. 2009. 2008 distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays. Special scientific report 152. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Orth, R.J., M.R. Williams, S.R. Marion, D.J. Wilcox, T. Carruthers, K.A. Moore, W.M. Kemp, W.C. Dennison, N. Rybicki, P. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk. 2010. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1144–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palinkas, C.M. 2009. The timing of floods and storms as a controlling mechanism for shelf deposit morphology. Journal of Coastal Research 25: 1122–1129.Google Scholar
  41. Palinkas, C.M., and C.A. Nittrouer. 2006. Clinoform sedimentation along the Apennine shelf, Adriatic Sea. Marine Geology 234: 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palinkas, C.M., C.A. Nittrouer, R.A. Wheatcroft, and L. Langone. 2005. The use of 7Be to identify event and seasonal sedimentation near the Po River delta, Adriatic Sea. Marine Geology 222: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pasaric, M., and M. Orlic. 2001. Long-term meteorological preconditioning of the North Adriatic coastal floods. Continental Shelf Research 21: 263–278.Google Scholar
  44. Pascal, J. E., D. R. Miller, N. C. Barttow and V. Carter. 1982. Submersed aquatic vegetation in the Potomac River and Estuary of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. In: Hydrologic data report, May 1978 to November 1981. U.S. Geological Survey Report 82–694.Google Scholar
  45. Robbins, J.A. 1978. Geochemical and geophysical applications of radioactive lead. In Biogeochemistry of lead in the environment, ed. J.O. Nriagu, 285–393. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific.Google Scholar
  46. Schubel, J.R. 1972. Suspended sediment discharge of the Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Maryland, during 1969. Chesapeake Science 13: 53–58.Google Scholar
  47. Short, F.T. 1987. Effects of sediment nutrients on seagrasses: literature review and mesocosm experiment. Aquatic Botany 27: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sommerfield, C.K., C.A. Nittrouer, and C.R. Alexander. 1999. 7Be as a tracer of flood sedimentation on the northern California continental margin. Continental Shelf Research 19: 335–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. US Census Bureau (n.d.). Census of population and housing. 1790–2010 reports available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/.
  50. Van Katwijk, M.M., A.R. Bos, D.C.R. Hermus, and W. Suykerbuyk. 2010. Sediment modification by seagrass beds: muddification and sandification induced by plant cover and environmental conditions. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 2: 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vilibic, I. 2006. The role of the fundamental seiche in the Adriatic coastal floods. Continental Shelf Research 26: 206–216.Google Scholar
  52. Wicks, E.C. 2005. The effect of sea level rise on seagrasses: is sediment adjacent to retreating marshes suitable for seagrass growth? M.S. thesis. University of Maryland, College Park. 152 pp.Google Scholar
  53. Wicks, E.C., E.W. Koch, J.M. O’Neil, and K. Elliston. 2009. Effects of sediment organic content and hydrodynamic conditions on the growth and distribution of Zostera marina. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 378: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, S.L. 1988. Disturbance and recovery of a deep-water Caribbean seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series 42: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zaborska, A., J. Carroll, C. Papucci, and J. Pempkowiak. 2007. Intercomparison of alpha and gamma spectrometry techniques used in Pb-210 geochronology. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 93: 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zervas, C. 2001. Sea level variations of the United States, 1854–1999, NOAA technical report NOS CO-OPS 36. Silver Spring: National Ocean Service. 66 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Horn Point LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations