Skip to main content

Effects of Shoreline Alteration and Other Stressors on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays

Abstract

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) provides many important ecosystem functions, but SAV has been significantly reduced in many estuaries. We used spatial–statistical models to identify estuarine shoreline characteristics that explain variations in SAV abundance among subestuaries of the Chesapeake Bay and mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays. We summarized digital spatial data on shoreline construction, shoreline land use, physical characteristics, watershed land cover, and salinity for each subestuary. We related SAV abundance to shoreline characteristics and other stressors using univariate regression and multivariate models. The strongest univariate predictors of SAV abundance were percent shoreline forest, percent shoreline marsh, the percentage of shoreline that is 5–10 m tall, percent riprap, the percentage of subestuary area <2 m deep, percent herbaceous wetland, and percent shrubland. Shoreline marsh, bulkhead, and shoreline forest had different effects on SAV in different salinity zones. Percent riprap shoreline was the most important variable in a regression tree analysis of all the subestuaries, and percent deciduous forest in the watershed was the most important variable in a separate regression tree analysis on the mesohaline subestuaries. Subestuaries with <5.4 % riprap followed a significantly different temporal trajectory than those with >5.4 % riprap. SAV abundance has increased steadily since 1984 in subestuaries with <5.4 % riprap, but has not increased since 1996–1997 in subestuaries with >5.4 % riprap. Some shoreline characteristics interact with larger-scale factors like land cover and salinity zone to affect the distribution of SAV, while the effects of other shoreline characteristics are consistent among subestuaries with different salinities or local watershed land covers. Many shoreline characteristics can be controlled by management decisions, and our results help identify factors that managers should consider in efforts to increase SAV abundance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Allan, J.D., D.L. Erickson, and J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37: 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allord, G.J. 1992. 1 to 2,000,000 hydrologic unit map of the conterminous United States (digital data set). Reston: USGS.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, D.R. 2008. Model based inference in the life sciences: A prime on evidence. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, D.M., P.M. Glibert, and J.M. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25: 704–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baker, M.E., D.E. Weller, and T.E. Jordan. 2006. Comparison of automated watershed delineations: Effects on land cover areas, percentages, and relationships to nutrient discharge. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72: 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balouskus, R.G., and T.E. Targett. 2012. Egg deposition by Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia: Substrate utilization and comparison of natural and altered shoreline type. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 1100–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Batiuk, R.A., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, W. Dennison, L. Staver, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, R. Hickman, S. Kollar, and S. Bieber. 1992. Submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: A technical synthesis. Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Batiuk, R., P. Bergstrom, W.M. Kemp, E.W. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, C.L. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D.J. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg. 2000. Chesapeake bay submerged aquatic vegetation water quality and habitat based requirements and restoration targets: A second technical synthesis. Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bilkovic, D.M., M. Roggero, C.H. Hershner, and K.H. Havens. 2006. Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6B): 1185–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brush, G.S., and W.B. Hilgartner. 2000. Paleoecology of submerged macrophytes in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Monographs 70: 645–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, L.M. 1994. Bathymetric data held at the National Geophysical-Data Center. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 12: 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Comeleo, R.L., J.F. Paul, P.V. August, J. Copeland, C. Baker, S.S. Hale, and R.L. Latimer. 1996. Relationships between watershed stressors and sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay estuaries. Landscape Ecology 11: 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dan, A., A. Moriguchi, K. Mitsuhashi, and T. Terawaki. 1998. Relationship between Zostera marina beds and bottom sediments, wave action offshore in Naruto, southern Japan (original title: Naruto chisaki ni okeru amamo-ba to teishitsu oyobi haro tono kankei). Fisheries Engineering 34: 299–304.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dauer, D.M., J.A. Ranasinghe, and S.B. Weisberg. 2000. Relationships between benthic community condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23: 80–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2001. Shoreline metadata profile of the content standards for digital geospatial metadata. Reston: FGDC.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gabriel, A.O. 2012. Impacts of riprap on wetland shorelines, Upper Winnebago Pool Lakes, Wisconsin. Wetlands 32: 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gallegos, C.L. 2001. Calculating Optical Water Quality Targets to Restore and Protect Submersed Aquatic Vegetation: Overcoming Problems in Partitioning the Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient for Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Estuaries 24: 381–397.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallegos, C.L., and P. Bergstrom. 2005. Effects of a Prorocentrum minimum bloom on light availability for and potential impacts on submersed aquatic vegetation in upper Chesapeake Bay. Harmful Algae 4: 553–574.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gruber, R.K., D.C. Hinkle, and W.M. Kemp. 2011. Spatial patterns in water quality associated with submersed plant beds. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 961–972.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hale, S.S., J.F. Paul, and J.F. Heltshe. 2004. Watershed landscape indicators of estuarine benthic condition. Estuaries 27: 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heck Jr., K.L., and T.A. Thoman. 1984. The nursery role of seagrass meadows in the upper and lower reaches of the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 7: 70–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heck Jr., K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 253: 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hemminga, M., and C.M. Duarte. 2000. Seagrass ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hirsch, R.M., and J.R. Slack. 1984. A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resources Research 20(6): 727–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hogan, D.M., T.E. Jordan, and M.R. Walbridge. 2004. Phosphorus retention and soil organic carbon in restored and natural freshwater wetlands. Wetlands 24: 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 National Land-Cover Database for the United States. Photogrammatic engineering and remote sensing 70(7): 829–840.

  27. Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi. 1990. The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity. A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10: 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E.W. Koch, J.M. Landwehr, K.A. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N.B. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, and D.J. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime, and physical–chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 363–377.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. King, R.S., A.H. Hines, F.D. Graige, and S. Grap. 2005. Regional, watershed, and local correlates of blue crab and bivalve abundances in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay. United States of America Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319: 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kraus, N.C. and O.H. Pilkey. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the beach. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue Number 4.

  31. Li, X., D.E. Weller, C.L. Gallegos, T.E. Jordan, and H.C. Kim. 2007. Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay Subestuaries. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 840–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Living Shoreline Summit Steering Committee. 2006. Preface. Proceedings of the 2006 Living Shoreline Summit, Chesapeake Bay, CRC Publication No. 08-164.

  33. Lubbers, L., W.R. Boynton, and W.M. Kemp. 1990. Variations in structure of estuarine fish communities in relation to abundance of submersed vascular plants. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 65: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maindonald, J., and J. Braun. 2007. Data analysis and graphics using R: An example based approach, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Malhotra, A., and M.S. Fonseca. 2007. WEMo (Wave Exposure Model): Formulation, procedures, and validation. Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research at Beaufort. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS #65.

  36. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1982. The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marba, N.N., J. Cebrian, S. Enriquez, and C.M. Duarte. 1994. Migration of large-scale subaqueous bedforms measured with seagrasses (Cymodocea nodosa) as tracers. Limnology and Oceanography 39: 126–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Maryland’s Law. 2008. Living Shoreline Protection Act. HB 973.

  39. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Milne, B.T. 1988. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Applied Mathematics and Computation 27: 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Moore, K.A., D.J. Wilcox, and R.J. Orth. 2000. Analysis of the abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23: 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shepherd, S.P. Powers, and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315: 1846–1850.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Orth, R.J., R.A. Batiuk, P.W. Bergstrom, and K.A. Moore. 2002. A perspective on two decades of policies and regulations influencing the protection and restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Bulletin of Marine Science 71(3): 1391–1403.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Orth, R.J., J.R. Fishman, M.C. Harwell, and S.R. Marion. 2003. Seed-density effects on germination and initial seedling establishment in eelgrass Zostera marina in the Chesapeake Bay region. Marine Ecology Progress Series 250: 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. Serio. 2004. 2003 Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. VIMS Special Scientific Report Number 144. Final Report to U.S. EPA, Cheapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Grant No. CB983807-01-0, 2004

  47. Orth, R.J., M.L. Luckenbach, S.R. Marion, K.A. Moore, and D.J. Wilcox. 2006a. Seagrass recovery in the Delmarva Coastal Bays, USA. Aquatic Botany 84: 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck Jr., A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and S.L. Williams. 2006b. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56: 987–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Orth, R.J., M.R. Williams, S.R. Marion, D.J. Wilcox, T.J.B. Carruthers, K.A. Moore, W.M. Kemp, W.C. Dennison, N.B. Rybicki, P. Bergstrom, and R. Batiuk. 2010. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1144–1163.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Paerl, H.W., W.R. Boynton, R.L. Dennis, C.T. Driscoll, H.S. Greening, J.N. Kremer, N.N. Rabalais, and S.P. Seitzinger. 2001. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in coastal waters: Biogeochemical and ecological implications. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 57: 11–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Paling, E.I., M. van Keulen, and K.D. Wheeler. 2003. The influence of spacing on mechanically transplanted seagrass survival in a high energy regime. Restoration Ecology 11: 56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Posey, M.H., C. Wigan, and J.C. Stevenson. 1993. Effects of an introduced aquatic plant, Hydrilla verticillata, on benthic communities in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 37: 539–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

  55. Rasmussen, E. 1977. The wasting disease of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and its effects on environmental factors and fauna. In Seagrass ecosystems, ed. C.P. McRoy and C. Helfferich, 1–51. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rodriguez, W., P.V. August, Y. Wang, J.F. Paul, A. Gold, and N. Rubinstein. 2007. Empirical relationships between land use/cover and estuarine condition in the Northeastern United States. Landscape Ecology 22: 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Segar, D.A., and E.S. Segar. 2007. Introduction to ocean sciences, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2006. Influence of shallow-water habitats and shoreline development upon abundance, biomass, and diversity of benthic prey and predators in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Southwick, C.H., and F.W. Pine. 1975. Abundance of submerged vascular vegetation in the Rhode River from 1966 to 1973. Chesapeake Science 16: 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Strayer, D.L., S.E.G. Findlay, D. Miller, H.M. Malcom, D.T. Fischer, and T. Coote. 2012. Biodiversity in Hudson River shore zones: Influence of shoreline type and physical structure. Aquatic Sciences 74: 597–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tatu, K.S., J.T. Anderson, L.J. Hindman, and G. Seidel. 2007. Mute swans’ impact on submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1431–1439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Theiler, E. R., and E. S. Hammar-klose. 1999. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to future sea-level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast Open-File Report 99-593. Washington: US Geological Survey.

  63. Tzortziou, M., P. J. Neale, C.L. Osburn, J.P. Megonigal, N. Maie, R. Jaffe. 2008. Tidal marshes as a source of optically and chemically distinctive colored dissolved organic matter in the Chesapeake Bay. Limnological Oceanography 53(1): 148–159.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tzortziou, M., P. J. Neale, J.P. Megonigal, C.L. Pow, and M. Butterworth. 2011. Spatial gradients in dissolved carbon due to tidal marsh outwelling into a Chesapeake Bay estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 426: 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  65. USEPA. 2003. Technical support document for identification of Chesapeake Bay designated uses and attainability. Annapolis: USEPA.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Venables, W.N., and R.D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Walsh, C.J., A.H. Roy, J.W. Feminella, P.D. Cottingham, P.M. Groffman, and R.P. Morgan II. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 706–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Weakliem, D.L. 2004. Model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33: 167–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Weinstein, M.P., and D.A. Kreeger. 2000. Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Dordrecht: Academic. 542 pp.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Whigham, D., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: A landscape perspective. Environmental Management 12: 663–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wigand, C., M. Finn, S. Findlay, and D. Fischer. 2001. Submersed macrophyte effects on nutrient exchanges in riverine sediments. Estuaries 24: 398–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wright, L.D. 1995. Morphodynamics of inner continental shelves. Boca Raton: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Chesapeake Bay Program for providing data used in our analysis. This work was supported by award number NA09NOS4780214 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher J. Patrick.

Additional information

Communicated by Kenneth Dunton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patrick, C.J., Weller, D.E., Li, X. et al. Effects of Shoreline Alteration and Other Stressors on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays. Estuaries and Coasts 37, 1516–1531 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9768-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Shoreline hardening
  • Riprap
  • SAV
  • Land use change
  • Shoreline geometry
  • Landscape analysis