Wetlands

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 451–461 | Cite as

Seasonal habitat-use patterns of nekton in a tide-restricted and unrestricted New England salt marsh

  • Kenneth B. Raposa
  • Charles T. Roman
Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Many New England salt marshes remain tide-restricted or are undergoing tidal restoration. Hydrologic manipulation of salt marshes affects marsh biogeochemistry and vegetation patterns, but responses by fishes and decapod crustaceans (nekton) remain unclear. This study examines nekton habitat-use patterns in the tide-restricted Hatches Harbor salt marsh (Provincetown, Massachusetts) relative to a downstream, unrestricted marsh. Nekton assemblages were sampled in tidal creek, marsh pool, and salt marsh surface habitats. Pools and creeks were sampled every two weeks for one year to account for seasonal variability, and the marsh surface was sampled at two-week intervals in summer and fall. Density, richness, and community composition of nekton in creek and marsh surface habitats were similar between the unrestricted and restricted marsh, but use of pools differed drastically on the two sides of the tide-restricting dike. In 95% of the cases tested, restricted marsh habitats provided equal or greater habitat value for nekton than the same habitat in the unrestricted marsh (based on density), suggesting that the restricted marsh did not provide a degraded habitat for most species. For some species, the restricted marsh provided nursery, breeding, and overwintering habitat during different seasons, and tidal restoration of this salt marsh must be approached with care to prevent losses of these valuable marsh functions.

Key Words

nekton salt marsh New England habitat use tide restriction throw trap 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Able, K. W. 1984. Variation in spawning site selection of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Copeia 1984: 522–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Able, K. W., R. S. McBride, R. A. Rountree, and K. J. Smith. 1996. Fishes of polyhaline estuarine shores in Great Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: a case study of seasonal and habitat influences. p. 335–353. In K. F. Nordstrom and C. T. Roman (eds.) Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments and Human Alterations. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.Google Scholar
  3. Allen E. A., P. E. Fell, M. A. Peck, J. A. Gieg, C. R. Guthke, and M. D. Newkirk. 1994. Gut contents of common mummichogs, Fundulus heteroclitus L., in a restored impounded marsh and in natural reference marshes. Estuaries 17:462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anger, K., E. Spivak, and T. Luppi. 1998. Effects of reduced salinities on development and bioenergetics of early larval shore crab, Carcinus maenas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 220:287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audet, C., G. J. Fitzgerald, and H. Guderley. 1986. Environmental control of salinity preferences in four sympatric species of sticklebacks: Gasterosteus aculeatus, Gasterosteus wheatlandi, Pungitius pungitius and Apeltes quadracus. Journal of Fish Biology 28:725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, N. E. and W. A. Niering. 1993. Tidal marsh restoration: Trends in vegetation change using a geographical information system (GIS). Restoration Ecology 1:18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burdick, D. M., M. Dionne, R. M. Boumans, and F. T. Short. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, M. R. 1997. Primer User Manual: Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research. Plymouth Marine Laboratories, Plymouth, England.Google Scholar
  9. Chidester, F. E. 1920. The behavior of Fundulus heteroclitus on the salt marshes of New Jersey. American Naturalist 54:551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, K. R. and R. M. Warwick. 1994. Change in Marine Communities: an Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, England.Google Scholar
  12. Daiber, F. C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Dionne, M., F. T. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 1999. Fish utilization of restored, created, and reference salt-marsh habitat in the Gulf of Maine. p. 384–404. In L. Benaka (ed.) Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, USA. Symposium 22.Google Scholar
  14. Fell, P. E., S. P. Weissbach, D. A. Jones, and M. A. Fallon. 1998. Does invasion of oligohaline tidal marshes by reed grass, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steud., affect the availability of prey resources for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus L? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 222:59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, T. E. and E. Mercer. 1986. Density, size distribution and home range of American eels, Anguilla rostrata, in a Massachusetts salt marsh. Environmental Biology of Fishes 17:309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritz, E. S., W. H. Meredith, and V. A. Lotrich. 1975. Fall and winter movements and activity level of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in a tidal creek. Chesapeake Science 16:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halpin, P. M. 1997. Habitat use patterns of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in New England. I. Intramarsh variation. Estuaries 20:618–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrington, R. W. and E. S. Harrington. 1982. Effects on fishes and their forage organisms of impounding a Florida salt marsh to prevent breeding by salt marsh mosquitoes. Bulletin of Marine Science 32:523–531.Google Scholar
  19. Heltshe, J. F. and N. E. Forrester. 1983. Estimating species richness using the jackknife procedure. Biometrics 39:1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Herke, W. H., E. E. Knudsen, P. A. Knudsen, and B. D. Rogers. 1992. Effects of semi-impoundment of Louisiana marsh on fish and crustacean nursery use and export. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kneib, R. T. 1987. Predation risk and use of intertidal habitats by young fishes and shrimp. Ecology 68:379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kushlan, J. A. 1981. Sampling characteristics of enclosure fish traps. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lazzari, M. A., S. Sherman, C. S. Brown, J. King, B. J. Joule, S. B. Chenoweth, and R. W. Langton. 1999. Seasonal and annual variations in abundance and species composition of two nearshore fish communities in Maine. Estuaries 22:636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, M. H. 1995. The effects of temperature, river flow, and tidal cycles on the onset of glass eel and elver migration into fresh water in the American eel. Journal of Fish Biology 46:891–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGovern, J. C. and C. A. Wenner. 1990. Seasonal recruitment of larval and juvenile fishes into impounded and non-impounded marshes. Wetlands 10:203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McIvor, C. C. and W. E. Odum. 1986. The flume net: A quantitative method for sampling fishes and macrocrustaceans on tidal marsh surfaces. Estuaries 9:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McIvor, C. C. and L. P. Rozas. 1996. Direct nekton use of intertidal saltmarsh habitat and linkage with adjacent habitats: a review from the southeastern United States. p. 311–334. In K. F. Nordstrom and C. T. Roman (eds.) Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments and Human Alterations. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England.Google Scholar
  28. Middaugh, D. P., G. I. Scott, and J. M. Dean. 1981. Reproductive behavior of the Atlantic silverside. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6:269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minello, T. J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the identification of essential fish habitat. p. 43–75. In L. Benaka (ed.) Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, USA. Symposium 22.Google Scholar
  30. Portnoy, J. W. 1999. Salt marsh diking and restoration: biogeochemical implications of altered wetland hydrology. Environmental Management 24:111–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Portnoy, J. W. and A. E. Giblin. 1997. Effects of historic tidal restrictions on salt marsh sediment chemistry. Biogeochemistry 36: 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raposa, K. B. 2000. Nekton utilization of tidally restricted, restoring, and reference New England salt marshes. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, and R. S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roman, C. T., R. W. Garvine, and J. W. Portnoy. 1995. Hydrologic modeling as a predictive basis for ecological restoration of salt marshes. Environmental Management 19:559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roman, C. T., N. Jaworski, F. T. Short, S. Findlay, and R. S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of the northeastern United States: habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries 23:743–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rountree, R. A. and K. W. Able. 1992. Fauna of polyhaline subtidal marsh creeks in southern New Jersey: composition, abundance and biomass. Estuaries 15: 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rozas, L. P. and T. J. Minello. 1997. Estimating densities of small fishes and decapod crustaceans in shallow estuariene habitats: a review of sampling design with focus on gear selection. Estuaries 20:199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rozas, L. P. and T. J. Minello. 1999. Effects of structural marsh management on fishery species and other nekton before and during a spring drawdown. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7: 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rozas, L. P., C. C. McIvor, and W. E. Odum. 1988. Intertidal rivulets and creekbanks: corridors between tidal creeks and marshes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 47:303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruiz, G. M., A. H. Hines, and M. H. Posey. 1993. Shallow water as a refuge habitat for fish and crustaceans in non-vegetated estuaries: an example from Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 99:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sinicrope, T. L., P. G. Hine, R. S. Warren, and W. A. Niering. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, K. J. and K. W. Able. 1994. Salt-marsh tide pools as winter refuges for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in New Jersey. Estuaries 17:226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sogard, S. M. and K. W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and marsh creeks as habitats for epibenthic fishes and decapods. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 33:501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, D. S., G. R. Poulakis, S. R. Kupschus, and C. H. Faunce. 1998. Estuarine reconnection of an impounded mangrove salt marsh in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida: short-term changes in fish fauna. Mangroves and Salt Marshes 2:29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, M. H., L. DiMichele, and G. J. Leach. 1977. Egg stranding in the life cycle of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Copeia 1977:397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vose, F. E. and S. S. Bell. 1994. Resident fishes and macrobenthos in mangrove-rimmed habitats: evaluation of habitat restoration by hydrologic modification. Estuaries 17:585–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinstein, M. P. S. L. Weiss, and M. F. Walters. 1980. Multiple determinants of community structure in shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Biology 58: 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weisberg, S. B. 1986. Competition and coexistence among four estuarine species of Fundulus. American Zoologist 26:249–257.Google Scholar
  49. Weisberg, S. B. and V. A. Lotrich. 1982. The importance of an infrequently flooded intertidal marsh surface as an energy source for the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus: an experimental approach. Marine Biology 66:307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weisberg, S. B., R. Whalen, and V. A. Lotrich. 1981. Tidal and diurnal influence on food consumption of a salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus. Marine Biology 61:243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth B. Raposa
    • 1
  • Charles T. Roman
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA
  2. 2.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA

Personalised recommendations