Mechanisms of Storm-Related Loss and Resilience in a Large Submersed Plant Bed
- 391 Downloads
There is a growing emphasis on preserving ecological resilience, or a system’s capacity to absorb or recover quickly from perturbations, particularly in vulnerable coastal regions. However, the factors that affect resilience to a given disturbance are not always clear and may be system-specific. We analyzed and synthesized time series datasets to explore how extreme events impacted a large system of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in upper Chesapeake Bay and to identify and understand associated mechanisms of resilience. We found that physical removal of plants around the edge of the bed by high flows during a major flood event as well as subsequent wind-driven resuspension of newly deposited sediment and attendant light-limiting conditions were detrimental to the SAV bed. Conversely, it appears that the bed attenuated high flows sufficiently to prevent plant erosion at its inner core. The bed also attenuated wind-driven wave amplitude during seasonal peaks in plant biomass, thereby decreasing sediment resuspension and increasing water clarity. In addition, clear water appeared to “spill over” into adjacent regions during ebb tide, improving the bed’s capacity for renewal by creating more favorable growing conditions in areas where plant loss had occurred. These analyses demonstrate that positive feedback processes, whereby an SAV bed modifies its environment in ways that improve its own growth, likely serve as mechanisms of SAV resilience to flood events. Although this work focuses on a specific system, the synthetic approach used here can be applied to any system for which routine monitoring data are available.
KeywordsSubmersed aquatic vegetation Storm Flood Feedbacks Resilience
We thank Debbie Hinkle, Steve Suttles, Laura Murray, and Steven Di Falco for help collecting samples; Viacheslav Lyubchich for guidance on statistical methods; Keith Williams and staff from NorthBay Adventure for field support; and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. WML, LPS, and CG received support to carry out this research from Maryland Sea Grant under awards NA10OAR4170072 R/SV-1 and NA14OAR4170090 R/SD-1 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce. This paper is contribution no. 5167 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Horn Point Laboratory and 3518 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary.
- Caffrey, J.M., M.C. Murrell, K.S. Amacker, J.W. Harper, S. Phipps, and M.S. Woodrey. 2014. Seasonal and inter-annual patterns in primary production, respiration, and net ecosystem metabolism in three estuaries in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts 37(51): 222–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carpenter, S.R., E.V. Armbrust, P.W. Arzerberger, S.F. Chapin III, J.J. Elser, E.J. Hackett, A.R. Ives, P.M. Kareiva, M.A. Leibold, P. Lundberg, M. Mangel, N. Merchant, W.W. Murdoch, M.A. Palmer, D.P.C. Peters, S.T.A. Pickett, K.K. Smith, D.H. Wall, and A.S. Zimmerman. 2009. Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. BioScience 59(8): 699–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Duffy, J.E., P.L. Reynolds, C. Bostrom, J.A. Coyer, M. Cusson, S. Donadi, J.G. Douglass, J.S. Eklof, A.H. Engelen, B.K. Eriksson, S. Fredriksen, L. Gamfeldt, C. Gustafsson, G. Hoarau, M. Hori, K. Hovel, K. Iken, J.S. Lefcheck, P. Moksnes, M. Nakaoka, M.I. O’Connor, J. Olsen, J.P. Richardson, J.L. Ruesink, E.E. Sotka, J. Thormar, M.A. Whalen, and J.J. Stachowicz. 2015. Biodiversity mediates top-down control in eelgrass ecosystems: a global comparative-experimental approach. Ecology Letters 19(7): 696–705. doi: 10.1111/ele.12448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fonseca, M. S., J. S. Fisher, J. C. Zieman, and G. W. Thayer. 1982. Influence of the seagrass, Zostera marina L., on current flow. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 15: 351–364. doi: 10.1016/0272-7714(82)90046-4.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp.Google Scholar
- Jackson, J.B., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T. Pl Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629–637. doi: 10.1126/science.1059199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E.W. Koch, J.M. Landwher, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lara, M., G. Peralta, J.J. Alonso, E.P. Morris, V. González-Ortiz, J.J. Rueda-Márquez, and J.L. Pérez-Lloréns. 2012. Effects of intertidal seagrass habitat fragmentation on turbulent diffusion and retention time of solutes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 2471–2479. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.07.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maxwell, P.S., K.A. Pitt, D.D. Burfeind, A.D. Olds, R.C. Babcock, and R.M. Connolly. 2014. Phenotypic plasticity promotes persistence following severe events: physiological and morphological responses of seagrass to flooding. Journal of Ecology 102: 54–64. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McFarland, D.G., and D.J. Shafer. 2008. Factors influencing reproduction in American wild celery: a synthesis. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 46: 129–144.Google Scholar
- Najjar, R.G., C.R. Pyke, M.B. Adams, D. Breitburg, C. Hershner, W.M. Kemp, R. Howarth, M.R. Mulholland, M. Paolisso, D. Secor, K. Sellner, D. Wardrop, and R. Wood. 2010. Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86: 1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2009.09.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nixon, S.W., J.W. Ammerman, L.P. Atkinson, V.M. Berounsky, G. Billen, W.C. Boicourt, W.R. Boynton, T.M. Church, D.M. Ditoro, R. Elmgren, H.J. Garber, A.E. Giblin, R.A. Jahnke, N.J.P. Owens, M.E.Q. Pilson, and S.P. Seitzinger. 1996. The fate of nitrogen and phosphorus at the land-sea margin of the North Atlantic Ocean. Biogeochemistry 35: 141–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. Rybicki, P. Bergstrom, and R.A. Bauiuk. 2010. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1144–1163. doi: 10.1007/s12237-010-9311-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parsons, T.R., Y. Maita, and C.M. Lalli. 1984. A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Preen, A. R., W. J. Lee Long, and R. G. Coles. 1995. Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Aquatic Botany 52. Elsevier: 3–17. doi: 10.1016/0304-3770(95)00491-H.
- Romero, J., K.S. Lee, M. Perez, M.A. Mateo, and T. Alcoverro. 2006. Nutrient dynamics in seagrass ecosystems. In Seagrasses: biology, ecology, and conservation, ed. A.W.D. Larkum, R.J. Orth, and C.M. Duarte, 227–254. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Sculthorpe, C.D. 1967. The biology of aquatic vascular plants. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
- Tengberg, A., E. Almroth, and P. Hall. 2003. Resuspension and its effects on organic carbon recycling and nutrient exchange in coastal sediments: In situ measurements using new experimental technology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 285–286: 119–142. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(02)00523-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tomasko, D.A., C.A. Corbett, H.S. Greening, and G.E. Raulerson. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation in seagrass coverage in Southwest Florida: assessing the relative effects of anthropogenic nutrient load reductions and rainfall in four contiguous estuaries. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 797–805. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.02.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Walker, D.I., G.A. Kendrick, and A.J. McComb. 2006. Decline and recovery of seagrass ecosystems—the dynamics of change. In Seagrasses: biology, ecology, and conservation, ed. A. Larkum, R.J. Orth, and C. Duarte, 551–565. The Netherdlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wang, P., and L. C. Linker. 2005. Effect of timing of extreme storms on Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation. In Hurricane Isabel in perspective, ed. K. G. Sellner, Edgewater, MD: Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication 05–160.Google Scholar