assessing linkages between nearshore habitat and estuarine fish communities in the chesapeake bay
DESCRIPTION
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens, Marcia R. Berman, David Stanhope and Lyle Varnell Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the
Chesapeake Bay
Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,Marcia R. Berman, David Stanhope and Lyle Varnell
Center for Coastal Resources ManagementVirginia Institute of Marine Science
![Page 2: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC)
ASC
Estuarine Indicator Research Programs in the United States
Research Institutes involved include: Pennsylvania State, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, East Carolina University and Virginia Institute of Marine Science
![Page 3: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
“Our suite of indicators will produce integrated assessments of the condition, health and sustainability
of aquatic ecosystems based on ecological and socioeconomic information compiled at the scale of estuarine segments and small watersheds, with clear
linkages and connections to larger scales”.
Brooks et.al., 2001
Stated GOAL of the Atlantic Slope Consortium
website: www.asc.psu.edu
![Page 4: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Can nearshore habitat be linked with fish community integrity, and are these accurate indicators of aquatic
ecosystem health?
Study Objectives
Develop and test fish community metrics that assess the
health of shallow-water estuarine systems in the Mid-Atlantic
Assess relationships among shoreline condition, subtidal
habitat, and fish community metrics
Assess potential relationship between watershed land use and
shallow-water estuarine fish communities*.
* Relationship between watershed land use and riparian land use observed for agricultural, forested and developed landscapes
![Page 5: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Comparison between percentages of each land use type in a watershed, and the corresponding riparian land use category: A) developed, B) agricultural, or C) forested. Data were extracted from a subset of thirteen watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay.
Developed Watershed Land Use (%)0 20 40 60 80
Dev
elop
ed S
hore
line
L
and
Use
(%
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 r = 0.54; p =0.05
Agricultural Watershed Land Use (%)0 10 20 30 40 50
Agr
icul
tura
l Sho
reli
ne
Lan
d U
se (
%)
0
10
20
30r = 0.58; p =0.039
Forested Watershed Land Use (%)10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
For
este
d S
hore
line
L
and
Use
(%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100r = 0.65; p = 0.017
![Page 6: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Sampling Locations and Watershed Land Use on the Chesapeake Bay
166,000 km2 watershed18,804 km of shoreline320 km long5.5 to 56 km wideonly 6.5 m average depth15 million people live in basin
![Page 7: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Watershed Selection
25 Watersheds selectedSalinity regime =
oligo-mesohalineAt least three watersheds in each land use class were sampledLand use categories
1) forested 2) agricultural
3) developed
Selection Criteria
![Page 8: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
5 SITES per watershed were sampled…
At each SITE we assessedHabitat Condition
Shoreline (alteration)Subtidal (physical structure)
Biotic CommunitiesFishPrey species
Water chemistry/physical
![Page 9: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Habitat Assessments
Shoreline Alteration
Artificial shoreline/embankments or dams or bridge abutments absent or minimal; stream with meandering pattern
Some artificial shoreline/embankments present (<40% of shoreline onsite); no evidence of recent shoreline alteration activity
Artificial shoreline/embankments present at some extent (40 to 80% of stream site altered), evidence of recent shoreline alteration activity
Artificial shoreline/banks (over 80% of the stream site disrupted), evidence of recent shoreline alteration activity
Score 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
![Page 10: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Eight metrics were assessed for consistency as indicators of aquatic ecosystem health based on fish community structure and function.
Fish Community Metrics
Fish Community Metrics Reference
Species Richness/Diversity MeasuresSpecies Richness this paperProportion of benthic-associated species Deegan et al. 1997Number of dominant species (90% of total abundance) Deegan et al. 1997Number of resident species Deegan et al. 1997
Fish Abundance Ln Abundance Deegan et al. 1997
Trophic CompositionTrophic Index Jordan and Vaas 2000
Nursery FunctionNumber of estuarine spawning species Deegan et al. 1997Number of estuarine nursery species Deegan et al. 1997
![Page 11: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Statistical Analyses
• Assessment of applicability and consistency of metrics
• Comparison among Fish Community Index scores, shoreline condition and subtidal habitat measures
• Comparison of Fish Community Index with overall watershed land use patterns
![Page 12: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Fish Community Metrics Assessment
Metrics were combined into an aggregate index by summing standardized individual metric values.
All but one of the examined fish community metrics was positively and highly correlated (r>0.5) with the summed metrics. Total abundance was excluded from the final fish community index (FCI).
![Page 13: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Species Richness
0 2 4 6 8
FC
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.83; p < 0.0001
Proportion of benthic-associated species
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FCI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.54; p < 0.0001
Number of Dominant Species
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FCI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.74; p < 0.0001
Number of Resident Species
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
FCI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.87; p < 0.0001
All Significant positive relationships
![Page 14: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Number of Estuarine Nursery Species
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
FCI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.88; p < 0.0001
Trophic Index
0 1 2 3 4 5
FC
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.66; p < 0.0001
Ln Abundance
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
FC
I
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8r = 0.16; p = 0.09
Number of Estuarine Spawning Species
2 4 6 8 10
FC
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7r = 0.82; p < 0.0001
Except…
![Page 15: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
PC1 PC2 Variable0.44 0.14 Species Richness0.23 0.38 Proportion of benthic-associated species0.38 0.27 No. of Dominant Species0.41 0.27 No. of Resident Species0.02 0.67 Ln Total Abundance0.35 0.30 Trophic Index0.38 0.33 No. of Estuarine Spawning Species0.43 0.24 No. of Estuarine Nursery Species57 23 % Variance accounted for
Additionally, we examined the metrics using PCA…
which indicated that the use of all the metrics, with the exception of total abundance, is supported for the development of a multi-metric FCI of the nearshore in coastal plain estuarine ecosystems.
![Page 16: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Fish Community Metrics Assessment
Metrics were combined into an aggregate index by summing standardized individual metric values.
All but one of the examined fish community metrics was positively and highly correlated (r>0.5) with the summed metrics. Total abundance was excluded from the final fish community index (FCI).
![Page 17: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Do Fish Respond to Variations in Nearshore Condition?
![Page 18: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Fish Community and Habitat Comparisons
Available subtidal habitat
Low Moderate Abundant
Fis
h C
omm
unit
y In
dex
(FC
I)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 p<0.001; all different
FCI scores were significantly different among all subtidal habitat categories. Higher scores were associated with increasing abundance of subtidal habitat
Amount of Alterations to Shoreline
High Moderate Minimal
Fis
h C
omm
unit
y In
dex
(FC
I)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 p=0.003; High vs.Minimal
FCI scores were significantly lower at sites with highly altered shorelines versus minimally altered shorelines.
![Page 19: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Watershed Land Use Category
Developed Agriculture Forest
Fis
h C
omm
un
ity
Ind
ex (
FC
I)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Watershed Land Use versus Fish
FCI scores were significantly lower in developed and agricultural watersheds versus forested watersheds.
p=0.03
![Page 20: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Subtidal Habitat related to Shoreline Condition
Shoreline Condition (altered--unaltered)
0 5 10 15 20
Sub
tidal
Hab
itat (
none
--ab
unda
nt)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
r = 0.575; p < 0.0001
Increased shoreline condition was associated with increased availableSubtidal structure (shelter for fish).
Habitat Comparisons
![Page 21: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Developed
ForestedAgricultural
Highly Altered
UnalteredModerately Altered
Minimal Habitat
Abundant HabitatModerate Habitat
![Page 22: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Seven of eight tested Fish Community Metrics were included in a
final index, and may be useful indicators of biotic integrity in shallow
water estuarine systems.
Linkages could be discerned between FCI scores and not only local
habitat influences, but also on a larger watershed scale. Thus, HABITAT
CONDITON shows promise as an indicator of estuarine health.
Linkages existed among habitat at various scales (e.g. Decreases in
FCI scores were evident with developed watersheds and shorelines which
were subsequently linked with the loss of subtidal habitat structure)
Future management tools?
Summary
![Page 23: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Ongoing continuous shoreline surveys extract information on shoreline condition (land use,structures, bank condition etc.) for comparison with biotic communities
GPS ContinuousSurvey
Assessment of shorelinecondition impacts on fish communities at multiple spatial scales
Acoustic habitat mapping in the nearshore and comparison of specific habitats with biota
Explore temporal trends in fish communities indices
Examine additional biological communities in association with shoreline condition (e.g. benthic macroinvertebrates).http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis/gisdata.html
Future Research
![Page 24: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
For instance…a metric measuring benthic community health increased as shoreline and watershed land use exhibited more natural conditions
W-value in relation to watershed and shoreline land use
Ben
thic
Com
mun
ity
Met
ric
(W-v
alue
)(d
istu
rbed
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
undi
stur
bed)
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
AG/Dev AG/Ag AG/For FOR/For
Land use/ Shoreline
![Page 25: Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022102809/56814dcb550346895dbb220b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Thanks to:Colleagues at SERC, Penn State, ECU and VIMS; funding source: Environmental Protection Agency, STAR Program