multi-scaled socio-ecology of the everglades fce iii lter goals: fce ... r.boucek... · fce iii...

40
FCE III LTER Goals: Water : How do water management decisions interact with climate change to determine freshwater distribution? Carbon: How does the balance of fresh and marine water supplies regulate C uptake, storage, and fluxes by influencing water residence time, nutrient availability, and salinity? Legacies: How does historic variability in the relative supply of fresh and marine water modify ecosystem sensitivity to further change? Scenarios: What are alternative socio-ecological futures for South Florida under contrasting climate change and water management scenarios? B P T O Carbon Cycle Global Climate Change Global Socioeconomic Change Everglades Coastal Gradient FRESH WATER SUPPLY Regional Climate Modulation Regional Water Management and Land Use South Florida Urban Gradient Resource Demand, Use, Stewardship and Management Decisions 1 MARINE WATER SUPPLY 2 1 1 Multi-Scaled Socio-Ecology of the Everglades FCE III Conceptual Framework 4 Past Future Geochemistry Primary Production Consumers Organic Matter Carbon Cycle 3 Present LOCAL RESPONSES EXTERNAL DRIVERS 1 2 3 4 Socio-ecological feedbacks

Upload: lyquynh

Post on 21-Jul-2018

226 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

FCE III LTER Goals:

Water : How do water

management decisions interact

with climate change to determine

freshwater distribution?

Carbon: How does the balance

of fresh and marine water supplies

regulate C uptake, storage, and

fluxes by influencing water

residence time, nutrient

availability, and salinity?

Legacies: How does historic

variability in the relative supply of

fresh and marine water modify

ecosystem sensitivity to further

change?

Scenarios: What are alternative

socio-ecological futures for South

Florida under contrasting climate

change and water management

scenarios?

B

P

T

O Carbon Cycle

Global

Climate

Change

Global

Socioeconomic

Change

Everglades Coastal Gradient FR

ES

H W

AT

ER

SU

PP

LY

Regional Climate

Modulation

Regional Water

Management and

Land Use

South Florida Urban Gradient

Resource Demand, Use, Stewardship and

Management Decisions

1

MA

RIN

E W

AT

ER

SU

PP

LY

2

1

1

Multi-Scaled Socio-Ecology of the Everglades FCE III Conceptual Framework

4 Past Future

Geochemistry

Primary

Production

Consumers

Organic

Matter

Carbon

Cycle

3 Present

LOCAL RESPONSES

EXTERNAL DRIVERS 1

2

3

4

Socio-ecological feedbacks

Party crashers: displaced marsh

consumers regulate a prey subsidy to

an estuarine consumer

Ross Boucek & Jennifer Rehage

Florida International University [email protected]

Pulsed resource subsidies

• Resource pulse Instantaneous resource

iincrease (Holt 2008)

• Subsidy Pulses across ecosystem

b boundaries (Anderson et al. 2008)

Yang et al. 2008

Mass emergences

of aquatic insects

Salmon in Pacific

NW

Seaweed deposits

on beaches

Bird guano

Pulsed resource subsidies

Subsidies can fuel almost all biological activity within

recipient ecosystems

(Polis et al. 2004; Spiller 2010)

Marine to terrestrial

What regulates the flow of resources from one

system to another?

Information gap

Paetzold et al. 2008

?

?

Energy Energy

• Deplete resources locally

– Nothing to transfer (Epichan et al. 2010)

• Track resources across boundaries

– Compete with recipient consumers

Consumers from donor communities important

Paetzold et al. 2008

Energy Energy

In the Pacific Northwest

Ocean

River Salmon migrate up river to spawn

Subsidizing upstream communities

Sea lions Track Salmon Up River

Ocean

River

Sealions reduce salmon subsidies by 65%

Ocean

River

Recycling marine energy to the oceans

Leaving hungry bears

Naughton et. al. 2011

Leading to Aggressive Management

Estuary

Marsh

Everglades Ecotone: Wet season

dep

th (

cm)

80

-20

60

40

20

0

05 06 07 08 09 10

Marsh water level ( SH1; 2005-2010)

Year

Estuary

Marsh

Everglades Ecotone: Wet season

Marsh

Prey

dep

th (

cm)

80

-20

60

40

20

0

05 06 07 08 09 10

Marsh water level ( SH1; 2005-2010)

Year

Estuary

Marsh

Everglades Ecotone: Wet season

dep

th (

cm)

80

-20

60

40

20

0

05 06 07 08 09 10

Marsh water level ( SH1; 2005-2010)

Year

Marsh Predators

Marsh

Estuary

Everglades Ecotone: Dry Season

Marsh Predators

Marsh

Prey

Estuarine

predators

dep

th (

cm)

80

-20

60

40

20

0

05 06 07 08 09 10

Marsh water level ( SH1; 2005-2010)

Year

Research questions

(1) Does marsh drying push freshwater prey into the estuary?

(2) How do consumers respond to the pulse?

(3) Are freshwater consumers reducing marsh subsidies for

estuarine consumers?

Focal taxa: 2 freshwater + 1 estuarine

consumer

Largemouth Bass

Gar, bass, bowfin and snook dominate

Consumers show marked seasonality

Wet Early Dry Late Dry

Ele

ctro

fishin

g (

#/1

00m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Gar

Bass

Bowfin

Snook

Tarpon

American eel

Gray snapper

Sheepshead

Redfish

Jack crevalle

Ladyfish

Study system: ecotonal sites at ENP

First and second order oligohaline estuarine creeks

< 1.2 m depth

< 10 PSU salinity

600 m

Predator abundance

Hypotheses

Prey abundance

Diet segregation

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Diet segregation

Marsh prey

consumption

Predator condition Predator condition

During drydown Post drydown

Marsh prey

consumption

Data collection

• Continuously sampled 5 sites

• Nov 2010 to June 2011

• Electrofishing

• Minnow traps

Statistics Compared time & species using GLMs

• Predator abundance

• Prey abundance

4 functional groups

Sunfishes Cyprinodontoids Invertebrates Estuarine prey

Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

* * * * * * * * * *

Sep

10

Nov

10

Jan

11

March

11

May

11

July

11

Mar

sh d

ep

th (

cm)

200

100

0

-100

Tracking predator-prey abundance

water level

sampling events *

USGS station SH1

Data Collection

Pulsed gastric lavage

100% effective in bass & snook (Adams et al. 2009 Hartleb & Moring 1995)

Statistics

Compared effects of time & species using Scheirer-Ray-Hare test (Dytham 1999)

• Time partitioned into 4 hydrologic stages

• biomass of freshwater and estuarine prey consumed

• Numerical proportions of each prey functional group

Stomach contents

Bass Bowfin Snook

stomachs

sampled 247 159 99

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Early

Mar.

Late

Mar.

April May June

40

30

20

10

120

40

80

0

# o

f fish p

er

100 m

Not sampled

Electrofishing

Minnow traps

0

160

Cyprinodontoids

Invertebrates

Prey Predators Diet Fitness gains

Species, p = .001

Time, p = .001

Species x time, p =.001

Sunfishes

Sunfishes

Estuarine Prey

# o

f pre

y p

er

trap p

air

Cyprinodontoids

Invertebrates

Estuarine prey

Estuarine prey

# o

f pre

y p

er

trap p

air

Cyprinodontoids

Invertebrates

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Early

Mar.

Late

Mar.

April May June

Sunfishes 40

30

20

10

120

40

80

0

200

100

0

# o

f fish p

er

100 m

Mars

h w

ate

r depth

(cm

)

Marsh water level

Electrofishing

Minnow traps

Marsh drying

0

160 200

100

0

-100

-100

Not sampled

USGS station SH1

Species, p = .001

Time, p = .001

Species x Time, p =.001

Estuarine Prey

Estuarine Prey

Prey Predators Diet Fitness gains

# o

f fish p

er

100 m

10

8

2

0

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Early

Mar.

Late

Mar.

April May June Species, p = .001

Time, p = .001

Species x Time, p =.001

4

6

12

14

Early

drydown

Pre

drydown

Late

drydown

Post

drydown

Prey Predators Diet Fitness gains

0

20

40

60

80

100100

80

60

40

20

0

100

12

8

4

0

Species, p < .001

Time, p < .001

Species x Time, p =.568

Species, p < .001

Time, p = .2915

Species x Time, p =.965

Pre

drydown Early

drydown

Post

drydown

Late

drydown

Freshwater prey

Estuarine prey

Bio

mass (

gra

ms)

consum

ed p

er

100 m

Prey Predators Diet Fitness gains

.8

.6

.4

.2

1.0 Sunfishes

Pre drydown Early drydown post drydown Late drydown

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cyprinodontoids

Invertebrates .8

.6

.4

.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

1.0

Species, p = .001

Time, p = .001

Species x Time, p =.01

Species, p = .001

Time p = .001

Species x Time, p =.47

Species, p = .001

Time p = .001

Species x Time, p =.85

Num

erical P

roport

ion

Dish = 10 cm

Prey Predators Diet Fitness gains

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Early

Mar.

Late

Mar.

April May June Bass, p = .001

Snook, p = .001

Bowfin, p =.001

.03

.025

.02

.015

Conditio

n

.01

* *

* *

*

Prey Predators Diet Fitness gains

Early

drydown

Pre

drydown

Late

drydown

Post

drydown

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Marsh prey

consumption

Predator condition Predator condition

During drydown Post drydown

Marsh prey

consumption

YES YES

Summary of results

Diet segregation Diet segregation

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Marsh prey

consumption

Predator condition Predator condition

During drydown Post drydown

Marsh prey

consumption

YES YES

Summary of results

YES YES

Diet segregation Diet segregation

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Diet segregation Diet segregation

Marsh prey

consumption

Predator condition Predator condition

During drydown Post drydown

Marsh prey

consumption

YES YES

Summary of results

YES YES

YES YES

Predator Abundance

Prey Abundance

Predator Abundance

Prey Abundance

Marsh prey consumption

Diet Segregation Diet Segregation

During Drydown Post Drydown

Summary of results

YES YES

YES YES

YES

YES YES

Marsh prey consumption YES

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Predator abundance

Prey abundance

Diet segregation Diet segregation

Marsh prey

consumption

Predator condition Predator condition

During drydown Post drydown

Marsh prey

consumption

YES YES

Summary of results

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

Implications

Marsh consumers regulate subsidy

Estuarine consumers

Marsh consumers

59%

36%

5%

Implications

In a series of years with high rainfall

Estuarine consumers

Marsh consumers

Implications

In a series of dry years

Estuarine consumers

Marsh consumers

19821983

19861987

19881989

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

Angle

r ca

tch p

er

day

0

10

20

30

40 snook

bass

Implications: Angler catches, Feb-June

Recaptured bass!!

Fished nearly every full moon of every month at the Rookery branch since 1982 Anglers in group wear counters to record bass and snook caught per day. Using similar lures since 1982

19821983

19861987

19881989

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

Angle

r ca

tch p

er

day

0

10

20

30

40snook

bass

Bass years

Implications: Angler catches Feb-June

19821983

19861987

19881989

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

Angle

r ca

tch p

er

day

0

10

20

30

40snook

bass

Snook years

Implications: Angler catches, Feb - June

≈18,246 of anglers target snook at ENP /yr (Osborne 2006)

Generating 4 million dollars per year

(Fedler 2009 & Ault et al. 2010)

Understanding and conserving snook

High quality foraging opportunities important

Everglades: World Class Snook Fishery

Snook fishery maybe enhanced by

subsidies

increased freshwater flow increases marsh fish production

Moving on to FCE III

Magnitude of subsidy

Small subsidy

Increased freshwater flow

Large subsidy Snook prey availability

Sea level rise

Proportion of subsidy to snook does not change, but the subsidy increases

Trexler et al. 2005

Please Visit Poster #216 Acknowledgements • USGS • RECOVER • FCE LTER • FIU • Rehage Lab • Aaron Adams • Craig Layman • Michael Heithaus • Amy Narducci • Dave Rose and the southernmost bass anglers