Effects of Local Shoreline and Subestuary Watershed Condition on Waterbird Community Integrity: Influences of Geospatial Scale and Season in the Chesapeake Bay
- 397 Downloads
In many coastal regions throughout the world, there is increasing pressure to harden shorelines to protect human infrastructures against sea level rise, storm surge, and erosion. This study examines waterbird community integrity in relation to shoreline hardening and land use characteristics at three geospatial scales: (1) the shoreline scale characterized by seven shoreline types: bulkhead, riprap, developed, natural marsh, Phragmites-dominated marsh, sandy beach, and forest; (2) the local subestuary landscape scale including land up to 500 m inland of the shoreline; and (3) the watershed scale >500 m from the shoreline. From 2010 to 2014, we conducted waterbird surveys along the shoreline and open water within 21 subestuaries throughout the Chesapeake Bay during two seasons to encompass post-breeding shorebirds and colonial waterbirds in late summer and migrating and wintering waterfowl in late fall. We employed an Index of Waterbird Community Integrity (IWCI) derived from mean abundance of individual waterbird species and scores of six key species attributes describing each species’ sensitivity to human disturbance, and then used this index to characterize communities in each subestuary and season. IWCI scores ranged from 14.3 to 19.7. Multivariate regression model selection showed that the local shoreline scale had the strongest influence on IWCI scores. At this scale, percent coverage of bulkhead and Phragmites along shorelines were the strongest predictors of IWCI, both with negative relationships. Recursive partitioning revealed that when subestuary shoreline coverage exceeded thresholds of approximately 5% Phragmites or 8% bulkhead, IWCI scores decreased. Our results indicate that development at the shoreline scale has an important effect on waterbird community integrity, and that shoreline hardening and invasive Phragmites each have a negative effect on waterbirds using subestuarine systems.
KeywordsChesapeake Bay Shoreline hardening Waterbirds Community integrity Land use Nearshore habitat
Funding for this study was provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR). We thank Shane Heath, Bridget Collins, Peter Osenton, Brian Ho Sung Lee, Lisa Vormwald, and Mary Maxey for assistance with field surveys and Katherine Dale for assistance with graphics. The authors would like to thank Deanna Dawson and three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments to strengthen earlier versions of this manuscript. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
- Baldassarre, Guy A. 2014. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Balouskus, Richard G., and Timothy E. Targett. 2017. Impact of armored shorelines on shore zone fish in a mid-Atlantic, USA, estuary: modulation by hypoxia and temperature. Estuaries and Coasts.Google Scholar
- Bilkovic, Donna M., and Molly M. Mitchell. 2013. Ecological tradeoffs of stabilized salt marshes as a shoreline protection strategy: Effects of artificial structures on macrobenthic assemblages. Ecological Engineering 61. Elsevier B.V.: 469–481. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Boere, Gerard C., Colin A. Galbraith, and David A. Stroud. 2006. Waterbirds around the world. Edinburgh, U. K.: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
- Burnham, Kenneth P., and David R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Currin, Carolyn A, William S Chappell, and Anne Deaton. 2010. Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina. Shipman, H., Dethier, M.N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh, K.L., and Dinicola, R.S., eds., Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009. Google Scholar
- DeLuca, William V., Colin E. Studds, Ryan S. King, and Peter P. Marra. 2008. Coastal urbanization and the integrity of estuarine waterbird communities: Threshold responses and the importance of scale. Biological Conservation 141. Elsevier ltd: 2669–2678. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.023.
- Dethier, Megan N., Wendel W. Raymond, Aundrea N. McBride, Jason D. Toft, Jeffery R. Cordell, Andrea S. Ogston, Sarah M. Heerhartz, et al. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175. Elsevier Ltd: 106–117. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2016.03.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dolbeer, Richard A., John L. Seubert, and Michael J. Begier. 2014. Population trends of resident and migratory Canada geese in relation to strikes with civil aircraft. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8: 88–99.Google Scholar
- Dugan, Jenifer E., Laura Airoldi, Maura G. Chapman, S. J. Walker, and Thomas Schlacher. 2011. Estuarine and coastal structures: environmental effects, a focus on shore and nearshore structures. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. Vol. 8. Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-2.00802-0.
- Fry, Joyce A., George Xian, Suming Jin, Jon A. Dewitz, Collin G. Homer, Limin Yang, Christopher A. Barnes, Nathaniel D. Herold, and James D. Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 77: 858–864.Google Scholar
- Gittman, Rachel K., Alyssa M. Popowich, John F. Bruno, and Charles H. Peterson. 2014. Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads during a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean and Coastal Management 102. Elsevier Ltd: 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gittman, Rachel K., F. Joel Fodrie, Alyssa M. Popowich, Danielle A. Keller, John F. Bruno, Carolyn A. Currin, Charles H. Peterson, and Michael F. Piehler. 2015. Engineering away our natural defenses: An analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13: 301–307. doi: 10.1890/150065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griggs, Gary B. 2005. The Impacts of Coastal Armoring. Shore & Beach 73: 13–22.Google Scholar
- Hall, Mary Jo, and Orrin H. Pilkey. 1991. Effects of hard stabilization on dry beach width for New Jersey. Journal of Coastal Research 7: 771–785.Google Scholar
- Hardaway, C. Scott, and Robert J. Byrne. 1999. Shoreline Management in Chesapeake Bay. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 356. Virginia Sea Grant Publication VSG-99-11.Google Scholar
- Karr, James R. 1996. Ecological integrity and ecological health are not the same. In Engineering within ecological constraints, ed. Peter C. Schulze, 97–109. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Kear, Janet. 2005. Ducks, Geese, and Swans. In General Chapters and Species Accounts (Anhima to Salvadorina), vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Li, Xuyong, Donald E. Weller, Charles L. Gallegos, Thomas E. Jordan, and Hae-Cheol 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. doi: 10.1007/BF02841338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lippson, Alice Jane, and Robert L. Lippson. 2006. Life in the Chesapeake Bay: An Illustrated Guide to the Fishes, Invertebrates, Plants, Birds and Other Animals of Bays and Inlets from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Long, W. Christopher, Jacob N. Grow, John E. Majoris, and Anson H. Hines. 2011. Effects of anthropogenic shoreline hardening and invasion by Phragmites australis on habitat quality for juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 409. Elsevier B.V.: 215–222. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.08.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ludwig, David F., Jacqueline Iannuzzi, Timothy J. Iannuzzi, and Joseph K. Shisler. 2010. Spatial and Temporal Habitat Use Patterns by Water Birds in an Urban Estuarine Ecosystem: Implications for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 16: 163–184. doi: 10.1080/10807030903459106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Manly, Bryan F.J. 2006. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
- Martínez, Fernández Julia, Miguel Angel Esteve Selma, Francisco Robledano Aymerich, María Teresa Pardo Sáez, and María Francisca Carreño Fructuoso. 2005. Aquatic birds as bioindicators of trophic changes and ecosystem deterioration in the Mar Menor lagoon (SE Spain). Hydrobiologia 550: 221–235. doi: 10.1007/s10750-005-4382-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ogden, John C., John D. Baldwin, Oron L. Bass, Joan A. Browder, Mark I. Cook, Peter C. Frederick, Peter E. Frezza, et al. 2014. Waterbirds as indicators of ecosystem health in the coastal marine habitats of southern Florida: 1. Selection and justification for a suite of indicator species. Ecological Indicators 44: 148–163. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Patrick, Christopher J., Donald E. Weller, Xuyong Li, and Micah Ryder. 2014. 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. doi: 10.1007/s12237-014-9768-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Plant, Nathaniel G., and Gary B. Griggs. 1992. Interactions between Nearshore Processes and Beach Morphology Near a Seawall. Journal of Coastal Research 8: 183–200.Google Scholar
- Prosser, Diann J., Jessica L. Nagel, Paul R. Marban, Ze Luo, Daniel D. Day, and R. Michael Erwin. 2017. Standardization and application of an index of community integrity for waterbirds in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Waterbirds 40.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing v. 2.15.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/, accessed 10 October 2014.
- Sciance, M. Benjamin, Christopher J. Patrick, Donald E. Weller, Meghan N. Williams, Melissa K. McCormick, and Eric L.G. Hazelton. 2016. Local and regional disturbances associated with the invasion of Chesapeake Bay marshes by the common reed Phragmites australis. Biological Invasions 18. Springer International Publishing: 2661–2677. doi: 10.1007/s10530-016-1136-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seitz, Rochelle D., Romuald N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, Michael S. Seebo, and Debra M. Lambert. 2006. Influence of shallow-water habitats and shoreline development on abundance, biomass, and diversity of benthic prey and predators in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 11–27. doi: 10.3354/meps326011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seitz, Rochelle D., Kathleen E. Knick, and Theresa M. Davenport. 2017. Upland use and shoreline development affect benthic community structure. Estuaries and Coasts.Google Scholar
- Stolen, Eric D., David R. Breininger, and Peter C. Frederick. 2005. Using waterbirds as indicators in estuarine systems: successes and pitfalls. In Estuarine Indicators, ed. S.A. Bortone, 409–422. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Takekawa, John Y., A. Keith Miles, David H. Schoellhamer, Nicole D. Athearn, Michael K. Saiki, W.D. Duffy, S. Kleinschmidt, Gregory G. Shellenbarger, and Christopher A. Jannusch. 2006. Trophic structure and avian communities across a salinity gradient in evaporation ponds of the San Francisco Bay estuary. Hydrobiologia 567: 307–327. doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0061-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Titus, James G. 1998. Rising seas, coastal erosion, and the takings clause: how to save wetlands and beaches without hurting property owners. Maryland Law Review 57: 1279–1399.Google Scholar
- Titus, James G., Daniel E. Hudgens, Daniel L. Trescott, Michael Craghan, William H. Nuckols, Carl H. Hershner, J.M. Kassakian, et al. 2009. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters 4: 044008. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar