Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic simulation of littoral zone habitats in lower Chesapeake Bay. I. Ecosystem characterization related to model development

  • Published:
Estuaries Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The fringing environments of lower Chesapeake Bay include sandy shoals, seagrass meadows, intertidal mud flats, and marshes. A characterization of a fringing ecosystem was conducted to provide initialization and calibration data for the development of a simulation model. The model simulates primary production and material exchange in the littoral zone of lower Chesapeake Bay. Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) properties of water and sediments from sand, seagrass, intertidal silt-mud, and intertidal marsh habitats of the Goodwin Islands (located within the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Virginia, CBNERR-VA) were determined seasonally. Spatial and temporal differences in sediment microalgal biomass among the habitats were assessed along with annual variations in the distribution and abundance ofZostera marina L. andSpartina alterniflora Loisel. Phytoplankton biomass displayed some seasonality related to riverine discharge, but sediment microalgal biomass did not vary spatially or seasonally. Macrophytes in both subtidal and intertidal habitats exhibited seasonal biomass patterns that were consistent with other Atlantic estuarine ecosystems. Marsh sediment organic carbon and inorganic nitrogen differed significantly from that of the sand, seagrass, and silt habitats. The only biogeochemical variable that exhibited seasonality was low marsh NH4 +. The subtidal sediments were consistent temporally in their carbon and nitrogen content despite seasonal changes in seagrass abundance. Eelgrass has a comparatively low C:N ratio and is a potential N sink for the ecosystem. Changes in the composition or size of the vegetated habitats could have a dramatic influence over resource partitioning within the ecosystem. A spatial database (or geographic information system, GIS) of the Goodwin Islands site has been initiated to track long-term spatial habitat features and integrate model output and field data. This ecosystem characterization was conducted as part of efforts to link field data, geographic information, and the dynamic simulation of multiple habitats. The goal of these efforts is to examine ecological structure, function, and change in fringing environments of lower Chesapeake Bay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • American Public Health Association. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Volume 18. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batuik, R. A., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, W. C. Dennison, J. C. Stevenson, L. Staver, V. Carter, N. B. Rybicki, R. E. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Bieber, andP. Heasly 1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, J. N., R. R. Christian, andD. W. Stanley. 1993. Patterns of phytoplankton primary productivity in the Neuse River estuary, North Carolina.Marine Ecology Progress Series 97:287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzelli, C. P. 1996. Integrative analysis of ecosystem processes in the littoral zone of lower Chesapeake Bay: A modeling study of the Goodwin Islands National Estuarine Research Reserve location. Ph.D. Dissertation. College of William and Mary, School of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzelli, C. P., R. L. Wetzel, andM. B. Meyers. 1998. Dynamic simulation modeling of littoral zone habitats in lower Chesapeake Bay. II. Seagrass habitat primary production and water quality relationships.Estuaries 21:673–689.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, D. L., H. N. Mckellar, R. F. Dame, F. H. Sklar, andE. R. Blood. 1993. A dynamic nutrient budget of subsystem interactions in a salt marsh estuary.Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 36:105–131.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, D. L., T. E. Jordan, andD. E. Weller. 1992. Nutrient flux in a landscape: Effects of coastal land use and terrestrial community mosaic on nutrient transport to coastal waters.Estuaries 15:431–442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daehnick, A. E., M. J. Sullivan, andC. A. Moncreiff. 1992. Primary production of the sand microflora in seagrass beds of Mississippi Sound.Botanica Marina 35:131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge, V. N. andF. Colijn. 1994. Dynamics of microphytobenthos biomass in the Ems estuary.Marine Ecology Progress Series 104:185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennison, W.C., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, J. C. Stevenson, V. C. Caster, S. Kollar, P. W. Bergstrom, andR. A. Batuik. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation.Bioscience 43:86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Science Research Institutute Inc. 1995. ARC/INFO 7.0 Manuals and Automated Help. Environmental Science Research Institute Incorporated. Redlands, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkestein, K. andC. S. Hardaway. 1988. Late Holocene sedimentation and erosion of estuarine fringing marshes, York River, Virginia.Journal of Coastal Research 4:447–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredette, T. J., R. J. Diaz, J. van Montfrans, andR. J. Orth. 1990. Secondary production within a seagrass bed (Zostera marina andRuppia martima) in lower Chesapeake Bay.Estuaries 13:431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. L. andR. W. Howarth. 1987. Seasonal differences inSpartina recoverable underground reserves in the Great Sippewissett Marsh in Massachusetts.Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 25:313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, D. M. andE. D. Gallagher. 1990. Field measurements of specific growth rate, biomass, and primary production of benthic diatoms of Savin Hill Cove, Boston.Limnology and Oceanography 35:1757–1770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M. F., M. A. Hardisky, P. L. Wolf, andV. Klemas. 1991. Relationship between aboveground and belowground biomass ofSpartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass).Estuaries 14: 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy, W. J. andG. W. Thayer. 1984. Production and decomposition of the roots and rhizome of seagrasses,Zostera marina andThalassia testudinum, in temperate and subtropical marine ecosystems.Bulletin of Marine Science 35:364–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen, C. 1967. Determination of chlorophyll and pheopigments: Spectrophotometric equations.Limnology and Oceanography 12:343–346.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. C., L. H. Crocker, S. E. Pike, andB. W. Wendler. 1988. Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary.Marine Ecology Progress Series 48:235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelssohn, I. A. 1973. Angiosperm production of three Virginia marshes in various salinity and soil nutrient regimes. M.S. Thesis. College of William and Mary, School of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moncreiff, C. A., M. J. Sullivan, andA. E. Daehnick. 1992. Primary production dynamics in seagrass beds of Mississippi Sound: The contributions of seagrass, epiphytic algae, sand microflora, and phytoplankton.Marine Ecology Progress Series 87:161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A. 1996. Relationships between seagrass growth and survival and environmental conditions in lower Chesapeake Bay. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. T. andB. Haskin. 1990. A 5 year record of aerial primary production and stand characteristics ofSpartina alterniflora.Ecology 71:2209–2217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R. J. andK. A. Moore. 1984. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An historical perspective.Estuaries 7:531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R. J. andK. A. Moore. 1984. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An historical perspective.Estuaries 7:531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R. J. andK. A. Moore. 1986. Seasonal and year-to-year variations in the growth ofZostera marina L. (eelgrass) in the lower Chesapeake Bay.Aquatic Botany 24:335–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R. J., J. F. Nowak, G. F. Anderson, andJ. F. Whiting. 1994. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries and Chincoteague Bay. 1993 Final Report United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinckney, J., R. Papa, andR. Zingmark. 1994. Comparison of high-performance liquid chromatographic, spectrophotometric, and fluorometric methods for determining chlorophylla concentrations in estuarine sediments.Journal of Microbiological Methods 19:59–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinckney, J. andR. Zingmark. 1993. Biomass and production of benthic microalgal communities in estuarine sediments.Estuaries 16:887–897.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, W. M., G. J. Lackey, andR. R. Christian. 1992. Significance of euphotic, subtidal sediments to oxygen and nutrient cycling in a temperate estuary.Marine Ecology Progress Series 86:51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C. T. andK. W. Able. 1988. Production ecology of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in a Cape Cod salt marsh-estuarine system, Massachusetts.Aquatic Botany 32:353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C. T., K. W. Able, M. A. Lazzari, andK. L. Heck. 1990. Primary productivity of angiosperm and macroalgae dominated habitats in a New England salt marsh: A comparative analysis.Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 30:35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozas, L. 1995. Hydroperiod and its influence on nekton use of the salt marsh: A pulsing ecosystem.Estuaries 18:579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sand-Jensen, K. andJ. Borum. 1991. Interactions among phytoplankton, periphyton, and macrophytes in temperate freshwaters and estuaries.Aquatic Botany 41:137–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubauer, J. P. andC. S. Hopkinson. 1984. Above and below-ground emergent macrophyte production and turnover in a coastal marsh ecosystem, Georgia.Limnology and Oceanography 29:1052–1065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoaf, W. T. andB. W. Lium. 1976. Improved extraction of chlorophylla andb from algae using dimethyl sulfoxide.Limnology and Oceanography 21:926–928.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. K., R. E. Good, andN. F. Good. 1979. Production dynamics for above and belowground components of a New JerseySpartina alterniflora tidal marsh.Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9:189–201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spinner, G. P. 1969. Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment.In The Wildlife Wetlands and Shellfish Areas of the Atlantic Coastal Zone. Volume 1, Folio 18. New York City. American Geographical Society, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, J. C., L. G. Ward, andM. S. Kearney. 1988. Sediment transport and trapping in marsh systems: Implications of tidal flux studies.Marine Geology 80:37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. J. andC. A. Moncreiff. 1988. Primary production of edaphic algal communities in a Mississippi salt marsh.Journal of Phycology 24:49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundback, D., V. Enoksson, W. Graneli, andK. Pettersson. 1991. Influence of sublittoral microphytobenthos on the oxygen and nutrient flux between sediment and water: A laboratory continuous-flow study.Marine Ecology Progress Series 74:263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne-Miller, B., M. M. Harlin, G. B. Thursby, B. Brady-Campbell, andA. Dworetzky. 1983. Variations in the distribution and biomass of submerged macrophytes in five coastal lagoons in Rhode Island, U.S.A.Botanica Marina 26:231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Commerce and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1991. Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System in Virginia-Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorosmarty, C. J. andT. C. Loder, III. 1994. Spring-neap tidal contrasts and nutrient dynamics in a marsh dominated estuary.Estuaries 17:537–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, R. L. andP. A. Penhale. 1983. Production ecology of seagrass communities in lower Chesapeake Bay.Marine Technology Society Journal 17:22–31.

    Google Scholar 

Unpublished Materials

  • Evans, D. personal communication, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Christopher P. Buzzelli

    Present address: Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University, University Park OE 148, 33199, Miami, Florida

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of William and Mary, School of Marine Science, 23062, Gloucester Point, Virginia

    Christopher P. Buzzelli

Authors
  1. Christopher P. Buzzelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buzzelli, C.P. Dynamic simulation of littoral zone habitats in lower Chesapeake Bay. I. Ecosystem characterization related to model development. Estuaries 21, 659–672 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2307/1353271

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1353271

Keywords

Search

Navigation