Evaluating Nearshore Communities as Indicators of Ecosystem Health

Bilkovic, Donna Marie; Stanhope, David; Havens, Kirk; Hershner, Carl; Berman, Marcia

doi:10.1201/9781420038187.ch23

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a meta-analysis, fauna adjacent to seawalls had lower diversity and abundance than that adjacent to natural habitats (Gittman et al 2016a). Similar to results for invertebrates, shoreline characteristics and inwater structure can affect fish communities that depend on subtidal infauna (Bilkovic et al 2005), while larger nekton may take many years to respond (La Peyre et al 2014). Since shoreline modification can affect both infaunal benthic communities and higher-trophic-level consumers over time, minimizing conventional shoreline development will reduce these negative effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Living Shorelines Support Nearshore Benthic Communities in Upper and Lower Chesapeake Bay

Davenport

Seitz

Knick

et al. 2017

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human population growth and sea-level rise are increasing the demand for protection of coastal property against shoreline erosion. Living shorelines are designed to provide shoreline protection and are constructed or reinforced using natural elements. While living shorelines are gaining popularity with homeowners, their ability to provide ecological services (e.g., habitat provision and trophic transfer) is not well understood, and information is needed to improve coastal and resource management decision-making. We examined benthic community responses to living shorelines in two case-study subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay using a before-after control-impact study design. At Windy Hill, a bulkhead was removed and replaced by three tombolos, sand fill, and native marsh vegetation. At Lynnhaven, 25 m of eroding marsh shoreline was stabilized with coir logs, sand fill, and native marsh vegetation. Communities of large (> 3 mm) infauna adjacent to living shorelines at both locations tended to increase in biomass by the end of the study period. Community compositions changed significantly following living shoreline construction at Windy Hill, reflecting a trend toward higher density and biomass of large bivalves at living shorelines compared to pre-construction. Increasing trends in density and biomass of clams and simultaneously decreasing density and decreasing trends in biomass of polychaetes suggest a transition toward stable infaunal communities at living shorelines over time, though longer-term studies are warranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Living Shorelines Support Nearshore Benthic Communities in Upper and Lower Chesapeake Bay

Davenport

Seitz

Knick

et al. 2017

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Bilkovic et al (2005), as human populations and coastal development increase, pressures on the aquatic resources will multiply, so that maintaining the desired benefits derived from aquatic systems will require an informed management of anthropogenic impacts. Efficiency in decision making will therefore require a distillation of complex interactions and data down to a few information-rich metrics that can then provide guidance to the entities having the authority over environmental management.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Biotic Integrity of the Coastal Freshwater Tidal Zone of a Temperate Estuary of South America through Multiple Indicators

Gómez

Licursi

Bauer

et al. 2012

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to propose an index [Index of Biotic Integrity for the Río de la Plata (IBIRP)] formulated from a minimum of information-rich metrics related to biological integrity for evaluation of the coastal freshwater tidal zone of the Río de la Plata estuary. A total of 23 sites were selected along 170 km of shoreline (34°27′10″ S, 58°30′21″ W and 35°23′28″ S, 57°08′50″ W), being influenced by different land uses. We explored 36 biotic descriptors (designated candidate metrics), each of which is considered as an environmental indicator, and selected four metrics: two related to phytoplankton assemblage (planktonic cyanobacterial density and phytoplanktonic total density) and two linked to benthic assemblages, the diatoms (percent most tolerant taxa), and the invertebrates (percent Tanaidacea). The metrics that were chosen to integrate the IBIRP provide valuable information about the biotic integrity both in terms of time and space. The multimetric index can assume values between 0 (very bad status) and 10 (very good status). The IBIRP correlated significantly with the second (p<0.001) and fourth (p < 0.01) factors of the factor analysis-those being related to variables indicative of eutrophication and organic pollution. This index constitutes an approach that is capable of reflecting the anthropogenic impacts produced along the coast of the Río de la Plata, with the inherent flexibility of being subject to modification and ultimate validation for estuaries of similar characteristics.

show abstract

“…The effectiveness of multi-metric biotic indices extends to estuarine systems, and use of fishbased indices of biotic integrity (IBI) has expanded (Deegan et al, 1997;Jordan and Vaas, 2000;Hughes et al, 2002;Bilkovic et al, 2005). Therefore, the FCI is a straightforward indicator of condition.…”

Section: Type Of Questionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…As part of the ASC project, Bilkovic et al (2005) developed and tested indicators of ecosystem health in the unique environment of nearshore, shallow water estuarine systems. For purposes of this case study, two indicators that were simultaneously developed are presented in detail: 1) a Fish Community Index (FCI), and 2) Habitat Condition Variables (shoreline condition, subtidal habitat, and watershed land use).…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biotic and habitat variables are often developed together, because they generally represent the response and stressor axes, respectively, of the stressor-response curve (Karr and Chu, 1999). Bilkovic et al (2005) linked response and probable stressors by evaluating the FCI in relation to habitat condition metrics that were assessed at multiple spatial scales (subtidal habitat, shoreline condition, and watershed land use). Within the study area (Chesapeake Bay), habitat conditions were characterized in estuarine segments that represented the variability in dominant land use types of surrounding watersheds.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing and Communicating a Taxonomy of Ecological Indicators: A Case Study from the Mid-Atlantic

Wardrop

Hershner²,

Havens³

et al. 2007

EcoHealth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To ensure indicators of ecosystem health are integrated into environmental decision-making, it is imperative to provide a comprehensive framework for indicator selection and use. The same framework can also be used to evaluate the utility of any given indicator. The Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC) has developed such a framework, based upon three primary elements: 1) The specific questions to be answered (the type of indicator), recognizing the following types of questions/indicators: Condition assessment: snapshot of the current state of the system; Stressor diagnosis: identification of causative factors of condition; Communication to the public: encouraging comprehension of condition in its most elementary or integrated form; Futures assessment: estimating the probable trajectory of condition, or assessing the vulnerability of any system to a stochastic event; Evaluation: a subset of condition indicators that evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. 2) The spatial and/or temporal scale of the issue being addressed (the spatial/temporal scale over which the indicator is valid).3) The context of the question, using categories of surrounding land use as surrogates for social choices. A Fish Community Index (FCI) developed for the ASC will provide an example of utilizing the framework to select an indicator, as well as using the framework to judge the utility of the indicator.

show abstract

Evaluating Nearshore Communities as Indicators of Ecosystem Health

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Living Shorelines Support Nearshore Benthic Communities in Upper and Lower Chesapeake Bay

Living Shorelines Support Nearshore Benthic Communities in Upper and Lower Chesapeake Bay

Assessment of Biotic Integrity of the Coastal Freshwater Tidal Zone of a Temperate Estuary of South America through Multiple Indicators

Developing and Communicating a Taxonomy of Ecological Indicators: A Case Study from the Mid-Atlantic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About