, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 841–851

Primary production and carrying capacity of former salt ponds after reconnection to San Francisco Bay

  • Julien Thébault
  • Tara S. Schraga
  • James E. Cloern
  • Eric G. Dunlavey


Over 6,110 ha of the commercial production salt ponds surrounding South San Francisco Bay, CA, have been decommissioned and reconnected to the bay, most as part of the largest wetlands restoration program in the western United States. These open water ponds are critical habitat for millions of birds annually and restoration program managers must determine the appropriate balance between retention of ponds versus re-conversion to tidal salt marsh, knowing that both are essential ecosystems for endangered bird species. Our study describes the ecological value of the new open water pond ecosystems as feeding habitats for birds. We used the oxygen rate of change method to determine ecosystem metabolic parameters from high resolution time-series of dissolved oxygen concentration. Areal gross primary production (8.17 g O2 m−2 d−1) was roughly double the world’s most productive estuaries. High rates of phytoplankton photosynthesis were balanced by equally high rates of community respiration (8.25 g O2 m−2 d−1). Metabolic equilibrium was delicately poised: sharp irradiance and temperature shifts triggered short term photosynthesis reduction resulting in oxygen depletion. We converted net primary production (NPP) into potential carrying capacity of the forage biota that support targeted pond waterbirds. NPP was processed through both a pelagic food web, resulting in forage biota for piscivorous birds and a benthic food web, resulting in forage biota for shorebirds and diving benthivores. Both food webs included efficient algal-based and inefficient detrital trophic pathways. The result of all primary production being routed through simple food webs was high potential forage production and energy supply to waterbirds, equivalent to 11–163 million planktivorous fish or 19–78 billion small estuarine clams within the 330-ha pond between May and October. Food quantity does not necessarily equal quality and these systems have the potential to produce toxic or inedible algae. Our study provides the first measurement of primary production in the open water ponds of San Francisco Bay and presents a novel approach for transforming primary production into forage production as a metric of an ecosystem’s energetic carrying capacity.

Key Words

birds dissolved oxygen concentration ecosystem restoration food webs forage biota net ecosystem metabolism phytoplankton 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Baker, K. S. and R. Frouin. 1987. Relation between photosynthetically available radiation and total insolation at the ocean surface under clear skies. Limnology and Oceanography 32: 1370–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson, B. B. and D. Krause. 1984. The concentration and isotopic fractionation of oxygen dissolved in freshwater and seawater in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Limnology and Oceanography 29: 620–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berglund, J., U. Müren, U. B. åmstedt, and A. Andersson. 2007. Efficiency of a phytoplankton-based and a bacteria-based food web in a pelagic marine system. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 121–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterwick, C., S. I. Heaney, and J. F. Tailing. 2005. Diversity in the influence of temperature on the growth rates of freshwater algae, and its ecological relevance. Freshwater Biology 50: 291–300.Google Scholar
  5. Caffrey, J. M. 2004. Factors controlling net ecosystem metabolism in U.S. estuaries. Estuaries 27: 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caffrey, J. M., J. E. Cloern, and C. Grenz. 1998. Changes in production and respiration during a spring phytoplankton bloom in San Francisco Bay, California, USA: implications for net ecosystem metabolism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 172: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. City of San Jose. 2007a. Clean bay strategy report for the San Jose/Santa Clara water pollution control plant. Environmental Services Department, San Jose, CA, USA. Available online at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/esd.Google Scholar
  8. City of San Jose. 2007b. 2006 Self-monitoring program report for Pond A18. Environmental Services Department, San Jose, CA, USA. Available online at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/esd.Google Scholar
  9. Clesceri, L. S., A. E. Greenberg, and A. D. Eaton (eds.) 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twentieth edition. APHA/AWWA/WEF, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Cloern, J. E. 1987. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Continental Shelf Research 7: 1367–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cloern, J. E. and R. Dufford. 2005. Phytoplankton community ecology: principles applied in San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 285: 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cloern, J. E., C. Grenz, and L. V. Lucas. 1995. An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyllxarbon ratio — the conversion factor between productivity and growth rate. Limnology and Oceanography 40: 1313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole, B. E., J. K. Thompson, and J. E. Cloern. 1992. Measurement of filtration rates by infaunal bivalves in a recirculating flume. Marine Biology 113: 219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conomos, T. J. 1979. San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Conover, D. O. and M. R. Ross. 1982. Patterns in seasonal abundance, growth and biomass of the Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia, in a New England Estuary. Estuaries 5: 275–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, B. A. 2003. A review of dissolved oxygen modelling techniques for lowland rivers. The Science of the Total Environment 314-316: 303–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cussler, E. L. 1984. Diffusion: Mass Transfer in Fluid Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  18. Dauer, D. M., A. J. Rodi, and J. A. Ranasinghe. 1992. Effects of low dissolved oxygen events on the macrobenthos of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15: 384–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gobler, C. J., D. J. Lonsdale, and G. L. Boyer. 2005. A review of the causes, effects and potential management of harmful brown tide blooms caused by Auveococcus anophageffevens (Hargraves et Sieburth). Estuaries 28: 726–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartman, B. and D. E. Hammond. 1985. Gas exchange in San Francisco Bay. p. 59–68. In J. E. Cloern and F. H. Nichols (eds.) Temporal Dynamics of an Estuary: San Francisco Bay. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Houde, E. D. and E. S. Rutherford. 1993. Recent trends in estuarine fisheries: predictions of fish production and yield. Estuaries 16: 161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ikeda, T. and N. Shiga. 1999. Production, metabolism and production/biomass (P/B) ratio of Themisto japonica (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in Toyama Bay, southern Japan Sea. Journal of Plankton Research 21: 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kemp, W. M., E. M. Smith, M. Marvin-DiPasquale, and W. R. Boynton. 1997. Organic carbon balance and net ecosystem metabolism in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 150: 229–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laws, E. A. 1991. Photosynthetic quotients, new production and net community production in the open ocean. Deep-Sea Research 38: 143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liss, P. S. and L. Merlivat. 1986. Air-sea gas exchange rates: introduction and synthesis. p. 113–27. In P. Buat-Menard (ed.) The Role of Air-Sea Exchange in Geochemical Cycling. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Lopez, C. B., J. E. Cloern, T. S. Schraga, A. J. Little, L. V. Lucas, J. K. Thompson, and J. R. Burau. 2006. Ecological values of shallow-water habitats: implications for the restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecosystems 9: 422–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKenna, J. E. 2003. Community metabolism during early development of a restored wetland. Wetlands 23: 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nichols, F. H., J. E. Cloern, S. N. Luoma, and D. H. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary. Science 231: 567–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nixon, S. W. 1988. Physical energy inputs and the comparative ecology of lake and marine ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography 33: 1005–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Connor, D. J. 1983. Wind effects on gas-liquid transfer coefficients. Journal of Environmental Engineering 109: 731–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odum, H. T. 1956. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnology and Oceanography 1: 102–17.Google Scholar
  32. Present, T. M. C. and D. O. Conover. 1992. Physiological basis of latitudinal growth differences in Menidia menidia: variation in consumption or efficiency? Functional Ecology 6: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ro, K. S. and P. G. Hunt. 2006. A new unified equation for winddriven surficial oxygen transfer into stationary water bodies. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 49: 1615–22.Google Scholar
  34. Russell, M. J. and P. A. Montagna. 2007. Spatial and temporal variability and drivers of net ecosystem metabolism in western Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 137–53.Google Scholar
  35. Sobczak, W. V., J. E. Cloern, A. D. Jassby, and A. B. Müller-Solger. 2002. Bioavailability of organic matter in a highly disturbed estuary: the role of detrital and algal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 8101–05.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sprung, M. 1995. Physiological energetics of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha in lakes II. food uptake and gross growth efficiency. Hydrobiologia 304: 133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Straile, D. 1997. Gross growth efficiencies of protozoan and metazoan Zooplankton and their dependence on food concentration, predator-prey weight ratio, and taxonomic group. Limnology and Oceanography 42: 1375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sündermann, J. (ed.). 1986. Landolt-Börnstein: Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology, Group V, Volume 3a. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. Takekawa, J. Y., A. K. Miles, D. H. Schoellhamer, N. D. Athearn, M. K. Saiki, W. D. Duffy, S. Kleinschmidt, G. G. Shellenbarger, and C. A. Jannusch. 2006. Trophic structure and avian communities across a salinity gradient in evaporation ponds of the San Francisco Bay estuary. Hydrobiologia 567: 307–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UNESCO. 1981. Tenth report of the joint panel on oceanographic tables and standards. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, n∘36, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  41. Warnock, N., G. W. Page, T. D. Ruhlen, N. Nur, J. Y. Takekawa, and J. T. Hanson. 2002. Management and conservation of San Francisco Bay salt ponds: effects of pond salinity, area, tide, and season on Pacific Flyway waterbirds. Waterbirds 25(Special Publication 2): 79–92.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, J. G. 2002. Productivity, fisheries and aquaculture in temperate estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 953–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wool, T. A., R. B. Ambrose, J. L. Martin, and E. A. Comer. 2001. Water quality analysis simulation program (WASP) version 6.0 draft: user’s manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Thébault
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tara S. Schraga
    • 1
  • James E. Cloern
    • 1
  • Eric G. Dunlavey
    • 3
  1. 1.United States Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.IUEM-UBOPlace Nicolas CopernicPlouzanéFrance
  3. 3.Environmental Services DepartmentCity of San JoseSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations