Estuaries

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 139–150 | Cite as

Of manatees, mangroves, and the Mississippi River: Is there an estuarine signature for the Gulf of Mexico?

Article

Abstract

Important parameters of estuarine variability include morphology, flushing times, nutrient loading rates, and wetland: water ratios. This variability both reflects and disguises underlying relationships between the physics and biology of estuaries, which this comparative analysis seeks to reveal, using the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) estuaries as a starting point. A question used to focus this analysis is: are the GOM estuaries unique? The GOM receives the Mississippi River, a uniquely large, world-class river, which dominates the freshwater and nutrient inflows to the GOM continental shelf, whose margins include 35 major estuarine systems. These GOM estuaries have 28% and 41% of the U.S. estuarine wetlands and open water, respectively. Within the GOM, estuarine nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended matter loading varies over 2 orders of magnitude. Anoxic estuarine events tend to occur in estuaries with relatively slow freshwater turnover and high nitrogen loading. Compared to estuaries from other regions in the U.S., the average GOM estuary is distinguished by shallower depths, faster freshwater flushing time, a higher wetland area:open water area ratio, greater fisheries yield per area wetland, lower tidal range, and higher sediment accumulation rates. The average GOM estuary often, but not always, has a flora and fauna not usually found in most other U.S. estuaries (e.g., manatees and mangroves). Coastal wetland loss in the GOM is extraordinarily high compared to other regions and is causally linked to cultural influences. Variations in nutrient loading and population density are very large among and within estuarine regions. This variation is large enough to demonstrate that there are insufficient systematic differences among these estuarine regions that precludes cross-system analyses. There are no abrupt discontinuities among regions in the fisheries yields per wetland area, tidal amplitude and vegetation range, salt marsh vertical accretion rates and organic accumulations, nitrogen retention, or wetland restoration rates. These results suggest that a comparative analysis emphasizing forcing functions, rather than geographic uniqueness, will lead to significant progress in understanding how all estuaries function, are perturbed, and even how they can be restored.

Keywords

Salt Marsh Coastal Wetland Wetland Loss Open Water Area Estuarine Wetland 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anonymous. 1993. Nutrient Enrichment Potential Watershed Assessment and Comparison (NEPWAC) System Gulf of Mexico Component, Ver. 1.0. Pollution Sources Characterization Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center. Stennis, Mississippi.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, M. andJ. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management.Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Childers, D. L., S. E. Davis III,R. Twilley, andV. Rivera-Monroy. 1999. Wetland-water column interactions and the biogeochemistry of estuary-watershed coupling around the Gulf of Mexico, p. 211–235.In T. S. Bianchi, J. R. Pennock, and R. W. Twilley (eds.), Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, J. M. andW. G. Smith. 1964. Late recent rise of sea level.Geological Society America Bulletin 75:833–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, D. G. Remer, C. M. Blackwell, andJ. J. McDonough III. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960–2010. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  6. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Day, J. W., G. P. Shaffer, L. D. Britsch, D. J. Reed, S. R. Hawes, andD. Cahoon. 2000. Pattern and process of land loss in the Mississippi Delta: A spatial and temporal analysis of wetland habitat change.Estuaries 23:425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrow, R. S. andJ. Broadus. 1990. Managing the Outer Continental Shelf Lands: Oceans of Controversy. Taylor and Francis, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Field, D. W., A. J. Reyer, P. V. Genovese, andB. D. Shearer. 1991. Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a Valuable National Resource. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division. Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland in cooperation with National Wetlands Inventory, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and The National Wetlands Research Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Slidell, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  10. Howarth, R. W., G. Billen, D. Swaney, A. Townsend, N. Jaworski, K. Lajtha, J. A. Downing, R. Elmgren, N. Caraco, T. Jordan, F. Berendse, J. Freney, V. Kudeyarov, P. Murdoch, andZ. Zhao-Liang. 1996. Regional nitrogen budgets and riveriene N & P fluxes for the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: Natural and human influences.Biogeochemistry 35:75–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchinson, G. E. 1936. The Clear Mirror. Leete's Island Books, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  12. Johansson, J. O. R. andR. R. Lewis III. 1992. Recent improvements of water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, a highly impacted subdivision of Tampa Bay, Flordia, U.S.A., p. 1199–1215.In R. A. Vollenweider, R. Marchetti, and R. Viviani (eds.), Marine Coastal Eutrophication, Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Lockwood, C. C. 1984. Gulf Coast: Where Land Meets the Sea. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  14. Lodrigue, K. and R. E. Turner. In review. The relationship ofSpartina alterniflora growth range to mean tide range.Wetlands Ecology and Management.Google Scholar
  15. Macarthur, R. H. andE. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  16. Mathews, G. A. andT. J. Minello. 1994. Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement ofSpartina alterniflora Marshes in the United States. Volume 2. Inventory and Human Resources Directory. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Moshiri, G. A., N. G. Aumen, andW. B. Crumpton. 1981. Reversal of the eutrophication process: A case study, p. 373–390.In B. J. Neilson and L. E. Cronin (eds.), Estuaries and Nutrients, Humana Press, Inc., Clifton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  18. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Fisheries of the United State, 1986. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 8385. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. Neill, C. andL. A. Deegan. 1986. The effect of Mississippi River delta lobe development on the habitat composition and diversity of Louisiana coastal wetlands.American Midland Naturalist 116:296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nixon, S. W. 1979. Between coastal marshes and coastal waters— A review of twenty years of speculation and research on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water chemistry, p. 437–525.In P. Hamilton and K. B. Macdonald (eds.), Estuarine and Wetland Processes. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Nixon, S. W. 1992. Coastal marine eutrophication: A definition, social causes, and future concerns.Ophelia 41:199–219.Google Scholar
  22. Nixon, S. W., J. W. Ammerman, L. P. Atkinson, V. M. Berounsky, G. Billen, W. C. Boicourt, W. R. Boynton, T. M. Church, D. M. Ditoro, R. Elmgren, J. H. Garber, A. E. Giblin, R. A. Jahnke, N. J. P. Owens, M. E. Q. Pilson, andS. P. Seitzinger. 1996. The fate of nitrogen and phosphorus at the land-sea margin of the North Atlantic Ocean.Biogeochemistry 35:141–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Coastal Assessment and Data Synthesis System. Online data-base of estuarine and watershed physical and hydrological characteristics, eutrophication condition information, nutrient loadings, land use. http://cads.nos.noaa.gov.Google Scholar
  24. Orlando, Jr.,S. P., L. P. Rozas, G. H. Ward, andC. J. Klein. 1993. Salinity Characteristics of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  25. Price, W. A. 1947. Equilibrium of form and forces in tidal basins of the coast of Texas and Louisiana.Bulletin American Association of Petroleum Geologists 31:1619–1663.Google Scholar
  26. Rabalais, N. N. 1992. An Updated Summary of Status and Trends in Indicators of Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico. Report to Gulf of Mexico Program, Nutrient Enrichment Subcommittee. Publ. No. EPA/800-R-92-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi.Google Scholar
  27. Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, W. J. Wiseman, Jr. andB. Sen Gupta. 1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf.Estuaries 19:386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Redfield, A. C. andM. Rubin. 1962. The age of salt marsh peat and its relation to recent changes in Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 48: 1728–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenberg, R. 1985. Eutrophication—The future marine coastal nuisance?Marine Pollution Bulletin 16:227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strategic Assessment Branch. 1985. National Estuarine Inventory: Data Atlas, Volume 1: Physical and Hydrologic Characteristics. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, National Ocean Service, national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  31. Strategic Assessment Branch. 1987. National Estuarine Inventory: Data Atlas, Volume 2: Land Use Characteristics. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, R. E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields of penaeid shrimp.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner, R. E. 1991. Tide gage records, water level rise and subsidence in the northern Gulf of Mexico.Estuaries 14:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner, R. E. 1997. Wetland loss in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Multiple working hypotheses.Estuaries 20:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner, R. E. 1999. Inputs and outputs of the Gulf of Mexico, p. 64–73.In H. Kumpf, K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman (eds.), The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  36. Turner, R. E. andR. R. Lewis III. 1996. Hydrologic restoration of coastal wetlands.Wetlands Ecology and Management 4:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turner, R. E. andN. N. Rabalais. 1999. Suspended particulate and dissolved nutrient loadings to Gulf of Mexico estuaries, p. 89–107.In T. S. Bianchi, J. R. Pennock, and R. W. Twilley (eds.), Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, R. E., E. M. Swenson, andC. S. Milan. 2001. Contrasting organic and inorganic content in recently accumulated salt marsh sediments.In M. Weinstein and D. D. Kreeger (eds.), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. In press.Google Scholar
  39. Weller, M. W. andL. H. Fredrickson. 1974. Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh.Living Bird 12:269–291.Google Scholar
  40. Whitaker, R. E. 1971. Seasonal Variations of Steric and Recorded Sea Level of the Gulf of Mexico. Office of Naval Research Contract Rept. N00014-68-A-0308-0002. Ref. 71-14T. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar

Source of Unpublished materials

  1. Lewis. R. personal communication. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., P. O. Box 400, Ruskin, Florida 33570-0400.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Coastal Ecology Institute and Department of Oceanography and Coastal SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge

Personalised recommendations