Estuaries

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

AreSpartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts

  • Larry D. Moy
  • Lisa A. Levin
Article

Abstract

Marsh creation has come into increasing use as a measure to mitigate loss of valuable wetlands. However, few programs have addressed the functional ecological equivalence of man-made marshes and their natural counterparts. This study addresses structural and functional interactions in a man-made and two natural marshes. This was done by integrating substrate characteristics and marsh utilization by organisms of two trophic levels. Sediment properties, infaunal community composition, andFundulus heteroclitus marsh utilization were compared for a man-madeSpartina salt marsh (between ages 1 to 3 yr) in Dills Creek, North Carolina, and adjacent natural marshes to the east and west. East natural marsh and planted marsh sediment grain-size distributions were more similar to each other than to the west natural marsh due to shared drainage systems, but sediment organic content of the planted marsh was much lower than in either natural marsh. This difference was reflected in macrofaunal composition. Natural marsh sediments were inhabited primarily by subsurface, deposit-feeding oligochaetes whereas planted marsh sediments were dominated by the tube-building, surface-deposit feeding polychaetesStreblospio benedicti andManayunkia aestuarina. Infaunal differences were mirrored inFundulus diets. Natural marsh diets contained more detritus and insects, because oligochaetes, though abundant, were relatively inaccessible. Polychaetes and algae were major constituents of the planted marshFundulus diet. Though naturalmarsh fish may acquire a potentially less nutritive, detritus-based diet relative to the higher animal protein diet of the planted marsh fish,Fundulus abundances were markedly lower in the planted marsh than in the natural marshes, indicating fewer fish were being supported. LowerSpartina stem densities in the planted marsh may have provided inadequate protection from predation or insufficient spawning sites for the fundulids. After three years, the planted marsh remained functionally distinct from the adjacent natural marshes. Mitigation success at Dills Creek could have been improved by increasing tidal flushing, thereby enhancing, access to marine organisms and by mulching withSpartina wrack to increase sediment organic-matter content and porosity. Results from this study indicate that salt marshes should not be treated as a replaceable resource in the short term. The extreme spatial and temporal variability inherent to salt marshes make it virtually impossible to exactly replace a marsh by planting one on another site.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Boesch, D. F. andR. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: The role of food and refuge.Estuaries 7:460–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brey, T., H. Rumohr, andS. Ankar. 1988. Energy content of macrobenthic invertebrates: General conversion factors from weight to energy.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 117:271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broome, S. W., E. D. Seneca, andW. W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1988. Tidal salt marsh restoration.Aquatic Botany 32:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain, R. L. andJ. M. Dean. 1976. Annual occurrence, abundance and diversity of fish in a South Carolina intertidal creek.Marine Biology 36:369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cammen, L. M. 1976. Abundance and production of macroinvertebrates from natural and artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina.American Midland Naturalist 96: 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciupek, R. B. 1986. Protecting wetlands under clean water act 404: EPA–s conservative policy on mitigation.National Wetlands Newsletter 8:12–15.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, R. A. 1987. Mitigation evaluation study for the south Texas coast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, Corpus Christi, Texas. November 1987. 88 p.Google Scholar
  8. Feller, R. J. 1986. Immunological detection ofMercenaria mercenaria in a predator and predation of size-class specific antibodies.Veliger 28:341–347.Google Scholar
  9. Feller, R. J., G. L. Taghon, E. D. Gallagher, G. E. Kenny, andP. A. Jumars. 1979. Immunological methods for food web analysis in soft-bottom benthic community.Marine Biology 54:61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heck, K. L. andT. A. Thoman. 1981. Experiments on predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic habitats.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 53:125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hefner, J. M. andJ. D. Brown. 1985. Wetland trends in the Southeastern United States.Wetlands 4:1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Hunter, J. andR. J. Feller. 1987. Immunological dietary analysis of two penaeid shrimp species from a South Carolina tidal creek.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 107:61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kneib, R. T. 1984. Patterns of invertebrate distribution and abundance in the intertidal salt marsh: Causes and questions.Estuaries 7:392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kneib, R. T. 1986. The role ofFundulus heteroclitus in salt marsh trophic dynamics.American Zoologist 26:259–269.Google Scholar
  15. Kneib, R. T. andA. E. Stiven. 1978. Growth, reproduction and feeding ofFundulus heteroclitus on a North Carolina salt marsh.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 31: 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraus, D. B. and M. L. Kraus. 1988. The establishment of a fiddler crab (Uca minax) colony on a manmadeSpartina mitigation marsh, and its effect on invertebrate colonization, p. 343–348.In J. Kusler, M. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.), Proceedings: National Wetland Symposium, Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, Oct. 8–10, 1986. New Orleans, LA. May 1988, ASWM Technical Report 3.Google Scholar
  17. Levin, L. A. 1984. Life history and dispersal patterns in a dense infaunal polychaete assemblage: Community structure and response to disturbance.Ecology 65:1185–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lopez, G. R. andJ. S. Levinton. 1987. Ecology of depositfeeding animals in marine sediments.Quarterly Review of Biology 62:235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lyon, J. T. 1975. A comparison of epiphytes on natural and plantedSpartina alterniflora marshes. M.S. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 34 p.Google Scholar
  20. Mason, C. O. andD. A. Slocum. 1987. Wetland replacement—Doest it work?Coastal Zone –87:1183–1197.Google Scholar
  21. McCann, L. D. andL. Levin. 1989. Oligochaete influence on settlement, growth and reproduction in a surface-deposit feeding polychaete.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 131:233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIvor, C. C. andW. E. Odum. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish assemblage.Ecology 69:1341–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meagher, J. W. 1988. Federal Mitigation Regulations, p. 37–39.In J. Kusler, M. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.), Proceedings: National Wetland Symposium, Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, Oct. 8–10, 1986. New Orleans, LA. May 1988, ASWM Technical Report 3.Google Scholar
  24. Minello, T. J. andR. J. Zimmerman. 1983. Fish predation on juvenile brown shrimp,Penaeus aztecus: The effect of simulatedSpartina structure on predation rates.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 72:211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minello, T. J. andR. J. Zimmerman. 1985. Differential selection for vegetative structure between juvenile brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and white shrimp (P. setiferus), and implications in predator-prey relationships.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 20:707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minello, T. J., R. J. Zimmerman, and E. F. Klima. 1987. Creation of fishery habitat in estuaries, p. 106–120.In M. C. Landin and H. K. Smith (eds.), Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials; Proceedings of the First Inter-Agency Workshop. USACE Tech. Rept. D-87-1 (March 1987).Google Scholar
  27. Orth, R. J., K. L. Heck, andJ. van Montfrans. 1984. Faunal communities in seagrass beds: A review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey-relationships.Estuaries 7:339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prinslow, T. E., I. Valiela, andJ. M. Teal. 1974. The effect of detritus and ration size on the growth ofFundulus heteroclitus.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 16:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quammen, M. L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands mitigation.National Wetlands Newsletter 8:6–8.Google Scholar
  30. Sacco, J. 1989. Infaunal community development of artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 41 p.Google Scholar
  31. Sacco, J., F. Booker, and E. D. Seneca. 1987. Comparison of the macrofaunal communities of a human-initiated salt marsh at two and fifteen years of age, p. 282–285.In Proceedings of the International Wetlands Symposium (NWF), October 5–9, 1987.Google Scholar
  32. Salamy, D. K. 1988. Selective digestion of nematode prey by juvenile spot,Leiostomus xanthurus. M.S. Thesis, University South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.Google Scholar
  33. SAS Institute, Inc. 1982. SAS User–s Guide: Statistics. 1982 ed. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina. 584 p.Google Scholar
  34. Seneca, E. D., S. W. Broome, W. W. Woodhouse, L. M. Cammen, andJ. T. Lyon. 1976. EstablishingSpartina alterniflora marsh in North Carolina.Environmental Conservation 3:185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thayer, G. 1987. Habitat development applications: Opening remarks, p. 129–131.In M. C. Landin and H. K. Smith (eds.), Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials; Proceedings of the First Inter-Agency Workshop. USACE Tech. Rept. D-87-1 (March 1987).Google Scholar
  36. Thayer, G., M. S. Fonseca, and W. J. Kenworthy. 1986. Wetland mitigation and restoration in the southeast United States and two lessons from seagrass mitigation, p. 95–117. Papers from: The Estuarine Management Practices Symposium November 12–13, 1985, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  37. Vadliela, I., J. E. Wright, J. M. Teal, andS. B. Volkmann. 1977. Growth, production, and energy transformations in the salt-marsh killifishFundulus heteroclitus.Marine Biology 40: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Dolah, R. F. 1978. Factors regulating the distribution and population dynamics of the amphipodGammarus palustris in an intertidal salt marsh community.Ecological Monographs. 48:191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vince, S. I. Valiela, andN. Backus. 1976. Predation by the salt marsh killifishFundulus heteroclitus in relation to prey size and habitat structure: Consequences for prey distributions and abundance.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 23:255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Webb, J. W. andC. J. Newling. 1985. Comparison of natural and man-made salt marshes in Galveston Bay Complex, Texas.Wetlands 4:75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weisberg, S. B. andV. A. Lotrich. 1982. The importance of an infrequently flooded intertidal marsh surface as an energy source for the mummichog: An experimental approach.Marine Biology 66:307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weisberg, S. B., R. Whalen, andV. A. Lotrich. 1981. Tidal and diurnal influence on food consumption of a salt marsh killifishFundulus heteroclitus.Marine Biology 61:243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whittaker, R. H. 1970. Communities and Ecosystems. Macmillan, New York. 158 p.Google Scholar
  44. Zedler, J. B. 1988. Salt marsh restoration: Lessons from California, p. 123–138.In J. Cairns (ed.), Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, Vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry D. Moy
    • 1
  • Lisa A. Levin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh

Personalised recommendations