Shoreline Hardening Affects Nekton Biomass, Size Structure, and Taxonomic Diversity in Nearshore Waters, with Responses Mediated by Functional Species Groups
Coastal shoreline hardening is intensifying due to human population growth and sea level rise. Prior studies have emphasized shoreline-hardening effects on faunal abundance and diversity; few have examined effects on faunal biomass and size structure or described effects specific to different functional groups. We evaluated the biomass and size structure of mobile fish and crustacean assemblages within two nearshore zones (waters extending 3 and 16 m from shore) adjacent to natural (native wetland; beach) and hardened (bulkhead; riprap) shorelines. Within 3 m from shore, the total fish/crustacean biomass was greatest at hardened shorelines, driven by greater water depth that facilitated access to planktivore (e.g., bay anchovy) and benthivore-piscivore (e.g., white perch) species. Small-bodied littoral-demersal species (e.g., Fundulus spp.) had greatest biomass at wetlands. By contrast, total biomass was comparable among shoreline types within 16 m from shore, suggesting the effect of shoreline hardening on fish biomass is largely within extreme nearshore areas immediately at the land/water interface. Shoreline type utilization was mediated by body size across all functional groups: small individuals (≤60 mm) were most abundant at wetlands and beaches, while large individuals (>100 mm) were most abundant at hardened shorelines. Taxonomic diversity analysis indicated natural shoreline types had more diverse assemblages, especially within 3 m from shore, although relationships with shoreline type were weak and sensitive to the inclusion/exclusion of crustaceans. Our study illustrates how shoreline hardening effects on fish/crustacean assemblages are mediated by functional group, body size, and distance from shore, with important applications for management.
KeywordsShoreline modification Shoreline armoring Habitat degradation Fish Crustaceans Chesapeake Bay
We thank H. Soulen, K. Heggie, K. Evans, C. Hause, C. Kliewer, M. Odabaş-Geldiay, D. Shikashio, J. Wilhelm, and many others for help with field collections. We also thank the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (Annapolis, MD) for leveraged, in-kind support for field collections, specifically the use of a specially designed skiff and associated equipment, supplies, and personnel. Scientific collection permits were obtained from the Maryland and Virginia Departments of Natural Resources prior to sampling, and animal handling conformed to the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center’s animal care protocols. Mention of specific product or trade names does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. This is publication #17-012 of the NOAA/CSCOR Mid-Atlantic Shorelines project, grant number NA09NOS4780214.
- Able, K.W., T.M. Grothues, J. Turnure, D.M. Byrne, and P. Clerkin. 2012. Distribution, movements, and habitat use of small Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) across multiple spatial scales. Fishery Bulletin 110: 176–192.Google Scholar
- Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck Jr., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Childers, D.L., J.W. Day Jr., and H.N. Mckellar Jr. 2000. Twenty more years of marsh and estuarine flux studies: revisiting Nixon (1980). In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, ed. M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger, 391–424. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Crossett, K., T. Culliton, P. Wiley, and T. Goodspeed. 2004. Population trends along the coastal United States, 1980–2008. Silver Spring: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
- Currin, C. A., W. S. Chappell, and A. Deaton. 2010. Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina. In Puget sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring, ed. H. Shipman, M. N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K. L. Fresh, and R. S. Dinicola, 91–102. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5254.Google Scholar
- David, V., J. Selleslagh, A. Nowaczyk, S. Dubois, G. Bachelet, H. Blanchet, B. Gouillieux, N. Lavesque, M. Leconte, N. Savoye, B. Sautour, and J. Lobry. 2016. Estuarine habitats structure zooplankton communities: implications for the pelagic trophic pathways. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2016.01.022.Google Scholar
- Davis, J. L. D., R. L. Takacs, and R. Schnabel. 2008. Evaluating ecological impacts of living shorelines and shoreline habitat elements: an example from the upper western Chesapeake Bay. In Management, policy, science, and engineering of nonstructural erosion control in the Chesapeake Bay: proceedings of the 2006 living shoreline summit, ed. S. Y. Erdle, J. L. D. Davis, and K. G. Sellner, 55–61. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Publication 08–164, Gloucester Point.Google Scholar
- Dugan, J.E., L. Airoldi, M.G. Chapman, S.J. Walker, and T. Schlacher. 2011. Estuarine and coastal structures: environmental effects, a focus on shore and nearshore structures. In Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, ed. E. Wolanski and D.S. Mclusky, vol. Vol. 8, 17–41. Waltham: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gittman, R.K., S.B. Scyphers, C.S. Smith, I.P. Neylan, and J.H. Grabowski. 2016a. Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. Bioscience 66: 763–773.Google Scholar
- Gittman, R.K., C.H. Peterson, C.A. Currin, F.J. Fodrie, M.F. Piehler, and J.F. Bruno. 2016b. Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats. Ecological Applications 26: 249–263.Google Scholar
- Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D’Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, C. Ebert, H.E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H.S. Lenihan, E.M.P. Madin, M.T. Perry, E.R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Steneck, and R. Watson. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hines, A.H., and G.M. Ruiz. 1995. Temporal variation in juvenile blue crab mortality: nearshore shallows and cannibalism in Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 57: 884–901.Google Scholar
- Kneib, R.T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanography and Marine Biology 35: 163–220.Google Scholar
- Kornis, M.S., D. Breitburg, R. Balouskus, D.M. Bilkovic, L.A. Davias, S. Giordano, K. Heggie, A.H. Hines, J.M. Jacobs, T.E. Jordan, R.S. King, C.J. Patrick, R.D. Seitz, H. Soulen, T.E. Targett, D. E. Weller, D.F. Whigham, and J. Uphoff Jr. 2017. Linking the abundance of estuarine fish and crustaceans in nearshore waters to shoreline hardening and landcover. Estuaries and Coasts. doi:10.1007/s12237-017-0213-6Google Scholar
- Murdy, E.O., R. S. Birdsong, and J. A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay, 324. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Peterson, M.S., B.H. Comyns, J.R. Hendon, P.J. Bond, and G.A. Duff. 2000. Habitat use by early life-history stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine landscape: Differences between natural and altered shoreline sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8: 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ross, S.W. 2003. The relative value of different estuarine nursery areas in North Carolina for transient juvenile marine fishes. Fishery Bulletin 101: 384–404.Google Scholar
- Weinstein, M.P., S.Y. Litvin, and V.G. Guida. 2005. Considerations of habitat linkages, estuarine landscapes, and the trophic spectrum in wetland restoration design. Journal of Coastal Research SI40: 51–63.Google Scholar
- Yang, M. L., W. S. Jiang, W. Y. Wang, X. F. Pan, D. P. Kong, F. H. Han, X. Y. Chen, and J. X. Yang. 2016. Fish assemblages and diversity in three tributaries of the Irrawaddy River in China: changes, threats and conservation perspectives. Knowledge & Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 417. doi: 10.1051/kmae/2015042.