Estuaries

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 151–166

Geographical signatures of middle Atlantic estuaries: Historical layers

  • Robert W. Paul
Article

Abstract

Estuaries of the middle Atlantic region can be characterized and viewed broadly against the backdrop of their geomorphologic features. While geomorphology is literally at the base of every estuary, these features do not necessarily yield regional signatures. A conceptual model, with layering in time and space, is proposed as an alternative to simplistic geomorphologic characterization. Humans have altered virtually every physical, chemical, and biological feature of middle Atlantic estuaries. A basic model premise is that middle Atlantic estuaries have a base of fundamental geomorphology features. Layered, in GIS fashion, on this base are the estuaries' components: climate, nutrients, watershed soils and vegetation, producers, and consumers. These components have been so strongly influenced by humans in time and space that the signature is anthropogenic. As a consequence, best management practices, stock assessment, and restoration have replaced concepts such as ecosystem integrity and stability. The focus of the layered model is the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and although middle Atlantic estuaries differ along climatic and latitudinal gradients, all reflect the detrimental effects of a massive human presence. The ability or inability of middle Atlantic estuaries to absorb human perturbation over the last 10,000 years gives them their signatures. From the Hudson-Raritan to the Pamlico-Albemarle estuaries, we have made some progress in curbing our impacts. Nearly everything we do affects our estuaries, and our actions are proportional to the number of humans living in the watersheds. Continued population growth on our coasts and many years of abuse may be irreversible as our estuaries lose their ability to be self-regulating, biological systems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Achman, D. R., B. J. Brownawell, andL. Zhang. 1996. Exchange of polychlorinated biphenyls between sediment and water in the Hudson River Estuary.Estuaries 19:950–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers, Jr.,B. D. 1993. Hard times for Chesapeake's oyster barvest.New York Times. October 17, 1993. 143:1.Google Scholar
  3. bailey, J. F., J. L. Patterson, and J. L. H. Paulhus. 1975. Hurricane Agnes Rainfall and Floods, June–July 1972. Professional Paper 924, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, R. 1979. A Summary and Analysis of Cultural Resource Information on the Continental Shelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras. Final Report, Volume II. Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. Bayley, S., V. D. Stotts, P. F. Springer, andJ. Steenis. 1978. Changes in submerged aquatic macrophyte populations at the head of Chesapeake Bay. 1958–1973.Estuaries 1:171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beeton, A. M. 1969. Changes in the environment and biota of the Great Lakes, p. 150–187.In Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Correctives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Betts, E. M. 1953. Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  8. Bidwell, P. W. and J. I. Falconer. 1941. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States 1620–1860. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 358, Peter Smith, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Boesch, D. F., R. J. Diaz, andR. W. Virnstein. 1976. Effects of tropical storm agnes on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities of the James and York Rivers and the lower Chesapeake Bay.Chesapeake Science 17:246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowden, K. F. 1967. Circulation and diffusion, p. 15–36.In G. H. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Boynton, W. R., W. M. Kemp, andC. W. Keefe. 1982. A comparative analysis of nutrients and other factors influencing estuarine phytoplankton production, p. 93–109.In V. S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Bradley, A. G. 1910. Introduction, p. i-xxx.In E. Arber (ed.), Travels and Works of Captain John Smith. Burt Franklin, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, W. K. 1891. The Oyster. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, H. C. 1934. The Story of Old New York. E. P. Dutton and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Brush, G. S. 1986. Geology and paleoecology of Chesapeake Bay: A long-term monitoring tool for management.Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76:146–160.Google Scholar
  16. Brush, G. S. 1989. Rates and patterns of estuarine sedimentation accumulation.Limnology and Oceanography 34:1235–1246.Google Scholar
  17. Burkholder, J. M., H. B. Glasgow, E. J. Noga, andC. W. Hobbs. 1993. The Role of a New Toxic Dinoflagellate in Finfish and Shellfish Kills in the Neuse and Pamlico Estuaries. Report No. 93-08, Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  18. Burkholder, J. M., E. J. Noga, H. B. Glasgow, C. W. Hobbs, andS. A. Smith. 1992. New “phantom” dinoflagellate is the causative agent of major estuarine fish kills.Nature 358:407–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burreson, E. M., N. A. Stokes, andC. S. Friedman. 2000. Increased virulence in an introduced pathogen:Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) in the eastern oysterCrassostrea virginica.Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 12:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Capper, J., G. Power, andF. R. Shivers, Jr. 1982. Governing Chesapeake Waters: A History of Water Quality Controls on the Chesapeake Bay, 1607–1972. Chesapeake Bay Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  21. Caraco, N. F., J. J. Cole, P. A. Raymond, D. L. Strayer, M. L. Pace, S. E. G. Findlay, andD. T. Fischer. 1997. Zebra mussel invasion in a large turbid river: Phytoplankton response to increased grazing.Ecology 78:588–602.Google Scholar
  22. Carlton, J. T. 1992. Introduced marine and estuarine mollusks of North America: An end-of-the-20th-century perspective.Journal of Shellfish Research 11:489–505.Google Scholar
  23. Chesapeake Bay Commission. 1995. The Introduction of Nonindigenous Species to the Chesapeake Bay Via Ballast Water. Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapoli, Maryland.Google Scholar
  24. Cicerone, R. J. 2000. Human forcing of climate change: Easing up on the gas pedal.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 97:10304–10306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clawson, M. 1979. Forests in the long sweep of American history.Science 204:1168–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cohen, R. R. H., P. V. Dresler, E. J. P. Phillips, andR. L. Cory. 1984. The effect of the Asiatic clam,Corbicula fluninea, on phytoplankton of the Potomac River, Maryland.Limnology and Oceanography 29:170–180.Google Scholar
  27. Conley, D. J., H. Kaas, F. Møhlenberg, B. Rasmussen, andJ. Windolf. 2000. Characteristics of Danish Estuaries.Estuaries 23:820–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooper, S. R. 1995. Chesapeake Bay watershed historical land use: Impact on water quality and diatom communities.Ecological Applications 5:703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cooper, S. R. andG. S. Brush. 1991. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia.Science 254:992–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cooper, S. R. andG. S. Brush. 1993. A 2500 year history of anoxia and eutrophication in the Chesapeake Bay.Estuaries 16:617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cresswell, N. 1925. The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell 1774–1777. Jonathan Cape. London.Google Scholar
  32. Cronin, L. E. 1967. The role of man in estuarine processes, p. 667–689.In G. H. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, D. J. Remer, C. M. Lackwell, andJ. J. McDonough. 1990. Fifty Years of Population Change Along the Nation's Coasts, 1960–2010. Strategic Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  34. Custer, J. F. 1986. Prehistory use of the Chesapeake Estuary: A diachronic perspective.Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76:161–172.Google Scholar
  35. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780 to 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  36. Dame, R. F. 1996. Ecology of Marine Bivalves. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  37. Dame, R., M. Alber, D. Allen, M. Mallin, C. Montague, A. Lewitus, A. Chalmers, R. Gardner, C. Gilman, B. Kjerfve, J. Pinckey, andN. Smith. 2000. Estuaries of the South Atlantic Coast of North America: Their Geographical Signatures.Estuaries 23:793–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dame, R. F., R. G. Zingmark, andE. Haskin. 1984. Oyster reefs as processors of estuarine materials.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 83:239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Day, Jr.,J. W., P. Didier, P. F. Hensel, andC. Ibanez. 1995. Impacts of sea-level rise in deltas in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean: The importance of pulsing events to sustainability.Estuaries 18:636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Emmett, R., R. Llansó, J. Newton, R. Thom, M. Hornberger, C. Morgan, C. Levings, A. Copping, andP. Fishman. 2000. Geographical Signatures of North American West Coast Estuaries.Estuaries 23:765–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Farley, C. A. 1975. Epizootic and enzootic aspects ofMinchinia nelsoni (Haplosporida) disease in Maryland oysters.Journal of Protozoology 22:418–427.Google Scholar
  42. Fincham, M. W. 1981. Introduction, p. xi-xvi.In V. S. Kennedy and L. L. Breisch (eds.). Maryland's Oysters: Research and Management. Publication No. UM-SG-TS-81-04. Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  43. Fisher, D. C. andM. Oppenheimer. 1991. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and the Chesapeake Bay Estuary.Ambio 20:102–108.Google Scholar
  44. Ford, S. E. 1992. Avoiding the transmission of disease in commercial cultures of molluscs, with special reference toPerkinsus marinus (Dermo) andHaplosporidium nelsoni (MSX).Journal of Shellfish Research 11:539–546.Google Scholar
  45. Forstall, R. L. (ed.). 1996. Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 to 1990 from the Twenty-one Decennial Census. Population Division, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  46. Froomer, N. L. 1978. Geomorphic change in some western shore tributaries during historic times. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  47. Galli, J. 1991. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  48. Gottlieb, S. J. andM. E. Schweighofer. 1996. Oysters and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem: A case study for exotic species introduction to improve environmental quality?Estuaries 19:639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gottschalk, L. C. 1945. Effects of soil erosion on navigation in upper Chesapeake Bay.Geographical Review 35:219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hargis, Jr.,W. J. 1999. The Chesapeake Bay: A Synopsis. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Glouchester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  51. Hargis, Jr.,W. J. andD. S. Haven. 1995. The precarious state of the Chesapeake public oyster resource, p. 559–584.In P. Hill and S. Nelson (eds.), Proceedings of the 1994 Chesapeake Research Conference, Toward a Sustainable Coastal Watershed: The Chesapeake Experiment. Chesapeake Research Consortium No. 149, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, Maryland.Google Scholar
  52. Haskin, H. H., L. A. Stauber, andJ. G. Mackin. 1966.Minchinia nelsoni n. sp. (Haplosporida, Haplosporidiidia): Causative agent of the Delaware Bay oyster epizootic.Science 153:1414–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hayes, M. O. 1978. Impact of hurricanes on sedimentation in estuaries, bays, and lagoons, p. 323–346.In M. L. Wiley (ed.), Estuarine Interactions. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Hennnessey, T. M. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay.Coastal Management 22:119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hirschberg, D. J., P. Chin, H. Feng, J. K. Cockran. 1996. Dynamics of sediment and contaminant tranport in the Hudson River Estuary: Evidence from sediment disturbance of naturally occurring radionucleotides.Estuaries 19:931–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hough, B. F. 1882. Report Upon Forestry. Volume III, Department of agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  57. Hyland, J. L., T. J. Herlinger, T. R. Snouts, A. H. Ringwood, R. F. van Dolah, C. T. Hackney, G. A. Nelson, J. S. Rosen, andS. A. Kokkiankis. 1996. Environmental Quality of Estuaries of the Carolina Provience: 1994. A Statistical Summary for the 1994 EMAP-Estuaries Demonstration Project of the Carolina Province. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  58. Jaworski, N. A. 1990. Retrospective of the water quality issues of the upper Potomac estuary.Aquatic Science 3:11–40.Google Scholar
  59. Jaworski, N. A., P. M. Groffman, A. A. Keller, andJ. C. Prager. 1992. A watershed nitrogen and phosphorus balance: The upper Potomac River basin.Estuaries 15:83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jeffries, H. P. 1962. Environmental characteristics of Raritan Bay, a polluted estuary.Limnology and Oceanography 7:21–31.Google Scholar
  61. Kemp, W. M., R. T. R. Twilley, J. C. Stevenson, W. R. Boyton, andJ. C. Means. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in the Upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes.Journal of Marine Technology Society 17:78–79.Google Scholar
  62. Kennedy, V. S. andL. L. Breisch. 1981. Maryland's Oysters: Research and Management. Publication No. UM-SG-TS-81-04, Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  63. Kennedy, V. S. andL. L. Breisch. 1983. Sixteen decades of political management of the oyster fishery in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay.Journal of Environmental Management 16:153–171.Google Scholar
  64. Kent, B. W. 1986. Making Dead Oysters Talk: Techniques for Analyzing Oysters Shells from Archeological Sites. Maryland Historical Trust. Amsterdam, Maryland.Google Scholar
  65. Klein, P. S. andA. Hoogenboom. 1973. History of Pennsylvania. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Klein, R. D. 1979. Urbanization and stream quality impairment.Water Resources Bulletin 15:948–963.Google Scholar
  67. Kuenzler, E. J. 1989. The value of forested wetlands as filters for sediments and nutrients, p. 85–96.In D. L. Hook and L. Ross (eds.). The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States. General Technical Report SE-50, Southeastern Forest Experimental Station, Asheville, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  68. Kuenzler, E. J. andN. J. Craig. 1986 Land use and nutrient yields of the Chowan River watershed, p. 77–107.In D. L. Correll (ed.), Water Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  69. Kuhlman, E. G. 1978. The devastation of American chestnut by blight, p. 1–3.In W. L. MacDonald, F. C. Cech, J. Luchak, and C. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the American Chestnut Symposium, West Virginia University Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  70. Land, A. G. 1969. The tobacco staple and the planter's problems: Technology, labor, crops.Agricultural History 43:69–86.Google Scholar
  71. Lemon, J. T. 1972. The Best Poor Man's Country. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  72. Limburg, K. andR. Schmidt. 1990. Patterns of fish spawning in Hudson River tributaries—Response to an environmental gradient?Ecology 71:1231–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Macissac, H. J., W. G. Sprules, O. E. Johannsson, andJ. H. Leach. 1992. Filtering impacts of larval and sessile zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in western Lake Erie.Oecologia 92:30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mackie, G. L., W. N. Gibbons, B. W. Muncaster, andI. M. Gray. 1989. The Zebra Mussel,Dreissena polymorpha: A Synthesis of European Experiences and a Preview for North America. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  75. Mackin, J. G., H. M. Owen, andA. Collier. 1950. Preliminary note on the occurrence of a new protistan parasite,Dermocystidium marinum, n. sp. inCrassostrea virginica (Gmelin).Science 111:328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Malone, T. C., W. Boynton, T. Horton, andC. Stevenson. 1993. Nutrient loadings to surface waters: Chesapeake Bay Case Study, p. 8–38.In M. F. Uman (ed.), Keeping Pace with Science and Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  77. Manderson, J. P., B. A. Phelan, A.W. Stoner, andJ. Hilbert. 2000. Predator-prey relations between age-1+summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus, Linnaeus) and age-0 winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Walbaum): Predator diets, prey selection, and effects of sediments and macrophytes.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 251:17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. McCormick-Ray, M. G. 1998. Oyster reefs in the 1878 seascape pattern—Winslow revisited.Estuaries 21:784–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McMahon, G. andO. B. Lloyd, Jr. 1995. Water-quality Assessment of the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin, North Carolina and Virginia—Environmental Setting and Water-Quality Issues. Open file report 95-136, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  80. Miller, H. M. 1986. Transforming a “splendid and delightsome land”: Colonists and ecological change in the Chesapeake 1607–1820.Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76:173–187.Google Scholar
  81. Mills, E. L., D. L. Strayer, M. D. Scheurell, andJ. T. Carlton. 1996. Exotic species in the Hudson River Basin: A history of invarsions and introduction.Estuaries 19:814–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Molnar, P. 1986. The structure of mountain ranges.Scientific American 255:70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mooney, H. A. andJ. A. Drake. (Eds.). 1986. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  84. Murawski, S. A. andA. L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and Fisheries Data on Atlantic Sturgeon,Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). Technical Series Report No. 10, Sandy Hook Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Highlands, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  85. Newell, R. I. E. 1988. Ecological changes in the Chesapeake Bay: Are they the result of overharvesting the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica?) p. 536–546.In M. P. Lynch and E. C. Krome (eds.), Understanding the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research, Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication 129, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, Maryland.Google Scholar
  86. Nichols, A. J. 1937. The Oyster-Packing Industry of Baltimore, It's History and Current Problems. Bulletin of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Contribution No. 11, University of Maryland, Solomons Island, Maryland.Google Scholar
  87. Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Nonindigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  88. Officer, C. B., R. B. Briggs, J. L. Taft, L. E. Cronin, M. A. Tyler, andW. R. Boynton. 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: Origin, development, and significance.Science 223:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Orth, R. J. andK. A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation.Science 222:51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Orth, R. J., J. F. Nowak, G. F. Anderson, D. J. Wilcox, J. R. Whiting, and L. S. Nagey. 1996. Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay—1995. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  91. Orth, R. J., J. F. Nowak, D. J. Wilcox, J. R. Whiting, and L. S. Nagey. 1998. Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay—1997. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  92. Ostrander, C. W. andW. E. Price, Jr. 1940. Minerals of Maryland. The Natural History Society of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  93. Palmer, T. 1996. America by Rivers. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  94. Pardieck, R. A., R. J. Orth, R. J. Diaz, andR. N. Lipcius. 1999. Ontogenetic changes in habitat use by postlarvae and young juveniles of the blue crab.Marine Ecology Progress Series 186: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Paynter, Jr.K. T. 1996. Introduction to the 1996 edition, p. ix-xxxi.In W. K. Brooks (ed.), The Oyster, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  96. Pearson, J. C. 1942. The fish and fisheries of colonial Virginia. Second Installment.William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine 22:353–360.Google Scholar
  97. Poag, C. W. 1999. Chesapeake Invader, Discovering America's Giant Meteor Crater. Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey.Google Scholar
  98. Pritchard, D. W. 1967. Observations of circulation in coastal plain estuaries, p. 37–44.In G. H. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  99. Pryor, E. B. 1984. Agricultural Implements Used by Middle-Class Farmers in the Colonial Chesapeake. The National Colonial Farm Research Report No. 16, The Accokeek Foundation, Inc., Accokeek, Maryland.Google Scholar
  100. Reinharz, E. 1981. Animal Sediment Relationships: A Case Study of the Patapsco River. Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  101. Rodith, H. A., N. F. Caraco, J. J. Cole, andD. L. Strayer. 1996. Filtration of Hudson River water by the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).Estuaries 19:824–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Roman, C. T., N. Jaworski, F. T. Short, S. Findlay, andR. S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of the Northeastern United States: Habitat and Land Use Signatures.Estuaries 23:743–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rothschild, B. J., J. S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, andM. Heral. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: A century of habitat destruction and overfishing.Marine Ecological Progress Series 111:29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Russell, E. W. B. 1980. Vegetation change in northern New Jersey from precolonialization to present: A palynological interpretation.Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 107:432–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Russell, E. W. B., R. B. Davis, R. S. Anderson, T. E. Rhodes, andD. S. Anderson. 1993. Recent centuries of vegetation change in the glaciated north-eastern United States.Journal of Ecology 81:647–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sanders, C. J., R. W. Stark, E. J. Mullins, andJ. Murphy. (eds.). 1985. Recent Advances in Spruce Budworms Research. Proceedings of the CANUSA Spruce Budworms Research Symposium, Bangor, Maine, September 16–20, 1984. Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  107. Schneider, D. W. 1996. Effects of European settlement and land use on regional patterns of similarity among Chesapeake forests.Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 123:223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Schubel, J. R. 1974. Effects of tropical stormAgnes on the suspended solids of the northern Chesapeake Bay, p. 113–132.In R. J. Gibbs (ed.), Suspended Sediments in Water. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  109. Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperiousness.Watershed Protection Techniques 1:100–111.Google Scholar
  110. Scott, J. 1807. A Geographical Description of the States of Maryland and Virginia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  111. Secor, D. H. andT. E. Gunderson. 1998. Effects of hypoxia and temperature on survival, growth, and respiration of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon,Acipenser oxyrhinchus.Fisheries Bulletin 96:603–613.Google Scholar
  112. Secor, D. H. andJ. R. Waldman. 1999. Historical abundance of Delaware Bay Atlantic sturgeon and potential rate of recovery.American Fisheries Society Symposium 23:203–216.Google Scholar
  113. Seliger, H. H., J. A. Boggs, andW. H. Biggley. 1985. Catastrophic anoxia in the Chesapeake Bay in 1984.Science 228: 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Setzler-Hamilton, E. M. 1987. Utilization of Chesapeake Bay by early life history stages of fishes, p. 63–93.In S. K. Majumdar, L. W. Hall, Jr., and H. M. Austin (eds.), Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Type House of Easton, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  115. Sharrer, G. T. 1988. The Patuxent fisheries: Transformations of a rural economy 1880–1985, p. 1–20.In P. J. Johnson (ed.), Working the Water: The Commercial Fisheries of Maryland's Patuxent River. Calvert Marine Museum and The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.Google Scholar
  116. Sindermann, C. J. andA. Rosenfield. 1967. Principal diseases of commercially important marine bivalve molluscs and crustacea.Fisheries Bulletin 66:335–385.Google Scholar
  117. Smith, J. 1612. The proceedings of the English Colonie in Virginia, 1606–1612, Volume 1.In E. Arber (ed.), 1910. Travels and Works of Captain John Smith. Burt Franklin, New York.Google Scholar
  118. Stanley, D. W. 1992. Historical Trends: Water Quality and Fisheries, Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, with Emphasis on the Pamlico River Estuary. University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program Publication UNC-SG-92-04. Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  119. Steel, J. 1991. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System: Technical Analysis of Status and Trends. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Report 90-01. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  120. Stevenson, C. H. 1894. The Oyster Industry in Maryland, p. 203–297.In M. McDonald (Commissioner), Volume 12 for 1892, Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  121. Swain, J. M. and F. C. Craighead. 1924. Studies on the Spruce Budworm. Part I. A General Account of the Outbreak. Canadian Department of Agriculture Bulletin 37, New Series, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  122. Terborgh, J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  123. Turner, R. E.. 2001. Of Manatees, Mangroves, and the Mississippi River: Is There An Estuarine Signature for the Gulf of Mexico?Estuaries 24:139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  125. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1973. Fisheries Statistics of the United States, 1972. National Marine Fisheries Service Statistical Digest 66, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  126. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1974. Fisheries Statistics of the United States, 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service Statistical Digest 67, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  127. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990. Estuaries of the United States, Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  128. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days, 1961–90. Climatography of the United States. No. 81. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  129. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  130. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change. Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. State of the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  132. van Zandt, R. 1971. Chronicles of the Hudson. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  133. Ward, L. W. andD. S. Powers. 1991. Tertiary lithology and paleontology, Chesapeake Bay region, p. 161–201.In A. Schultz and E. Compton-Gooding (eds.), Geological Evolution of the Eastern United States, Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia.Google Scholar
  134. Watts, W. A. 1979. Late Quaternary vegetation of central Appalachia and the New Jersey coastal plain.Ecological Monographs 49:427–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wharton, J. 1957. The Bounty of the Chesapeake, Fishing in Colonial Virginia. Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration, Williamsburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  136. Witty, A. andP. J. Johnson. 1988. An introduction to the catalog of artifacts, p. 55–180.In P. J. Johnson (ed.), Working the Water: The Commercial Fisheries of Maryland's Patuxent River. Calvert Marine Museum and The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert W. Paul
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, StMary’s College of MarylandSt. Mary's City

Personalised recommendations