Ecological Thresholds for Salt Marsh Nekton and Vegetation Communities

  • Mary-Jane James-Pirri
  • Jeffrey L. Swanson
  • Charles T. Roman
  • Howard S. Ginsberg
  • James F. Heltshe
Chapter

Abstract

Salt marsh vegetation and nekton respond to stressors in estuarine systems, providing ideal indicators of change. Here we characterize the structure of these communities along a gradient of anthropogenic stress (e.g., human population size of watersheds, degree of hydrological alteration of marshes), identify ecological thresholds that are linked to community condition, and provide potential decision thresholds for land managers based on an evaluation of community condition. Salt marsh nekton and vegetation community data (species composition and abundance) were compiled from over 180 discrete data sets from marshes along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia. Using multivariate techniques (e.g., Principal Component Analysis, Canonical Correspondence Analysis, Analysis of Similarities), patterns of community change along a gradient of hydrologic impact and degree of watershed development were elucidated. Several levels of community complexity, individual species’ abundances, and relative abundances of life history-based groups were used to identify potential metrics for ecological thresholds. The nekton community displayed shifts in community structure along a gradient of human population size (e.g., anthropogenic stress gradient) in surrounding watersheds, from resident fish-dominated communities at marshes in watersheds with low human populations to shrimp-dominated communities (Palaemonidae species) in watersheds with high human populations. Vegetation communities from reference (relatively hydrologically undisturbed) marshes were dominated by obligate halophytes (e.g., salt meadow grasses) with low proportions of invasive plants. Impacted (e.g., tidally restricted) marshes had fewer halophytic obligate wetland plants, more facultative wetland plant species, and higher proportions of invasive species. Shifts in characteristics of nekton and vegetation communities toward the impacted state can be used as ecological thresholds upon which decision thresholds for land managers can be based. For example, detection of declining proportions of killifish and transient fish and increasing proportions of Palaemonidae shrimp (the ecological threshold metrics), would indicate a community changing from moderate to poor condition (the decision threshold), thereby triggering management actions. Ecological thresholds are presented for both nekton and vegetation communities and are presented in the context of a desired resource goal (good, moderate, poor condition) that can be used by resource managers to evaluate responses to restoration activities or the overall condition of the marsh community. Findings from this study are most directly relevant to northeastern US salt marshes, but the methods used to derive the ecological threshold metrics can be applied to other regions.

Keywords

Grass shrimp Palaemonidae shrimp Killifish Fundulidae species Salt marsh community condition Salt marsh nekton Salt marsh vegetation Anthropogenic stress 

References

  1. Able, K. W., D. M. Nemerson, P. R. Light, and R. O. Bush. 2000. Initial response of fishes to marsh restoration at a former salt hay farm bordering Delaware Bay. In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, ed. M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger, 749–773. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Able, K. W., D. A. Witting, R. S. McBride, R. A. Rountree, and K. J. Smith. 1996. Fishes of polyhaline estuarine shores in Great Bay–Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: A case study of seasonal and habitat influences. In Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments, and Human Alterations, ed. K. F. Nordstrom and C. T. Roman, 335–353. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  3. Ayvazian, S. G., L. A. Deegan, and J. T. Finn. 1992. Comparisons of habitat use by estuarine fish assemblages in the Acadian and Virginian Zoographic Provinces. Estuaries 15:368–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigelow, H. B., and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries Bulletin 53:1–575.Google Scholar
  5. Bourn, W. S., and C. Cottam. 1950. Some biological effects of ditching tidewater marshes. Research Report 19. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Buchsbaum, R. N., J. Catena, E. Hutchins, and M-J. James-Pirri. 2006. Changes in salt marsh vegetation, Phragmites australis, and nekton in response to increased tidal flushing in a New England salt marsh. Wetlands 26:544–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, K. R., and R. N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER (Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research) v6: User Manual/Tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, K. R., and R. M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 2nd ed. Plymouth: PRIMER-EGoogle Scholar
  9. Collette, B. B., and G. Klein-MacPhee, eds. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 3rd ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deegan, L. A., J. A. Finn, S. G. Ayvazian, C. A. Ryder-Kieffer, and J. Buonaccorsi. 1997. Development and validation of an estuarine biotic integrity index. Estuaries. 20:601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donnelly, J. P., and M. D. Bertness. 2001. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98:14218–14223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot, M., A. K. Whitfield, I. C. Potter, S. J. M. Blaber, D. P. Cyrus, F. G. Nordlie, and T. D. Harrison. 2007. The guild approach to categorizing estuarine fish assemblages: A global review. Fish and Fisheries 8:241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, J. W. Willoughby, and J. P. Gibbs. 2001. Monitoring Plant and Animal Populations. Malden: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  14. ESRI. 2005. ArcGIS 9.1 software. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). Redlands.Google Scholar
  15. Friedland, K. D., G. C. Garman, A. J. Bejda, and A. L. Studholme. 1988. Interannual variation in diet and condition in juvenile bluefish during estuarine residency. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartig, E. K., V. Gornitz, A. Kolker, F. Mushacke, and D. Fallon. 2002. Anthropogenic and climate-change impacts on salt marshes of Jamaica Bay, New York City. Wetlands 22:71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes, J. E., L. A. Deegan, M. J. Weaver, and J. E. Costa. 2002. Regional application of an index of estuarine biotic integrity based on fish communities. Estuaries 25:250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. James-Pirri, M. J., C. T. Roman, E. L. Nicosia. 2012. Monitoring nekton in salt marshes: A protocol for the National Park Service’s long-term monitoring program, Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/NCBN/NRR-2012/579. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  19. James-Pirri, M. J., R. M. Erwin, D. J. Prosser, and J. Taylor. 2011. Responses of salt marsh ecosystems to mosquito control management practices along the Atlantic Coast (U.S.A.) Restoration Ecology. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00767.x (published online Feb 2011).Google Scholar
  20. James-Pirri, M. -J., C. T. Roman, J. L. Swanson. 2010. A quantitative gear to sample nekton in salt marsh ditches and small tidal creeks. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:413–419. doi:10.1577/T09-106.1Google Scholar
  21. James-Pirri, M. J., R. M. Erwin, D. J. Prosser. 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 5) Salt Marsh Study, 2001–2006: An assessment of hydrologic alterations on salt marsh ecosystems along the Atlantic coast. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and University of Rhode Island, Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service :427.Google Scholar
  22. James-Pirri, M. -J., C. T. Roman, and J. Heltshe. 2007. Power analysis to determine sample size for monitoring vegetation change in salt marsh habitats. Wetlands Ecology and Management 15:335–345. doi:10.1007/s11273-007-9034-x.Google Scholar
  23. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kent, M., and P. Coker. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis: A practical approach. England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Konisky, R. A., D. M. Burdick, M. Dionne, and H. Neckles. 2006. A regional assessment of salt marsh restoration and monitoring in the Gulf of Maine. Restoration Ecology 14:516–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaBrecque, E., C. Fritz, J. Tober, P. J. Behr, and I. Valiela. 1996. Abundance and age-specific growth rates in relation to population densities of Fundulus heteroclitus in Waquoit Bay estuaries subject to different nitrogen loads. Biological Bulletin 191:319–320.Google Scholar
  27. Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, J., M. C. Runge, J. D. Nichols, B. C. Lubow, and W. L. Kendall. 2009. Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. Ecological Applications 19:1079–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinho, F., I. Viegas, M. Dolbeth, R. Leitao, H. N. Cabral, and M. A. Pardal. 2008. Assessing estuarine environmental quality using fish based indices: Performance evaluation under climatic instability. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:1834–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niering, W. A., and R. S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and process in New England salt marshes. Bioscience 30:301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nixon, S. W., and C. A. Oviatt. 1973. Analysis of local variation in the standing crop of Spartina alterniflora. Botanica Marina 16:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards: Washington, D.C. EPA 440-4-89-001.Google Scholar
  33. Raposa, K. B., and C. T. Roman. 2000. Monitoring nekton in shallow estuarine habitats. Part of a series of monitoring protocols for the Long-term Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring Program at Cape Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Research Field Station, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/protocoldb.cfm.
  34. Raposa, K. B., C. T. Roman, and J. F. Heltshe. 2003. Monitoring nekton as a bioindicator in shallow estuarine habitats. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roman, C. T., R. A. Garvine, and J. W. Portnoy. 1995. Hydrologic modeling as a predictive basis for ecological restoration of salt marshes. Environmental Management 19:559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roman, C. T., M. J. James-Pirri, and J. F. Heltshe. 2001. Monitoring Salt Marsh Vegetation: Part of a series of monitoring protocols for the Long-term Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring Program at Cape Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Research Field Station, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/protocoldb.cfm.
  37. Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, and R. S., Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roman, C. T., K. B. Raposa, S. C. Adamowicz, M. J. James-Pirri, and J. G. Catena. 2002. Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 110:450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rozas, L. P., and T. J. Minello. 1997. Estimating densities of small fishes and decapod crustaceans in shallow estuarine habitats: a review of sampling design with focus on gear selection. Estuaries 20:199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sekiguchi, K. 1995. Occurrence, behavior and feeding habits of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at Pajaro Dunes, Monterey Bay, California. Aquatic Mammals 21:91–103.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, J. P. 1997. Nesting season food habits of four species of herons and Egrets at Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Colonial Waterbirds 20:198–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swanson, J. L. 2009. Finding indicators of salt marsh system health using nekton and vegetation data. Master’s Thesis. Kingston: University of Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  43. Tober, J., C. Fritz, E. LaBrecque, P. J. Behr, and I. Valiela. 1996. Abundance, biomass, and species richness of fish communities in relation to nitrogen-loading rates of Waquoit Bay estuaries. Biological Bulletin 191:321–322.Google Scholar
  44. USDA. 2009. website. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/index.html. Accessed June 2009.
  45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Effects of climate change for aquatic invasive species and implications for management and research. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/014. http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
  46. Vile, J. 2008. Fish IBI report, 2006 sampling, round 2, year 2 of 5. Vols 1. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Trenton. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bfbm/download/ibi2006Vol1.pdf.
  47. Wigand, C., R. McKinney, M. Chintala, S. Lussier, and J. Heltshe. 2010. Development of a reference coastal wetland set in Southern New England (USA). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 161:583–598. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0770-7.Google Scholar
  48. Wigand, C., R. Cameleo, R. McKinney, G. Thursby, M. Chintala, and M. Charpentier. 2001. Outline of a new approach to evaluate ecological integrity of salt marshes. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7:1541–1554.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary-Jane James-Pirri
    • 1
  • Jeffrey L. Swanson
    • 2
  • Charles T. Roman
    • 3
  • Howard S. Ginsberg
    • 2
  • James F. Heltshe
    • 4
  1. 1.Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and StatisticsUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  3. 3.National Park Service, Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA
  4. 4.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Field Station, Woodward Hall-PLSUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations