Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats

Bilkovic, Donna Marie; Roggero, Molly Mitchell; Hershner, Carl; Havens, Kirk

doi:10.1007/bf02781819

Cited by 80 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The local watershed of a subestuary can be a source of stressors, such as suspended sediment, nutrients, and colored dissolved organic matter; many studies have demonstrated that watershed characteristics affect the condition of estuarine organisms and communities (Comeleo et al 1996;Paul et al 2002;DeLuca et al 2004;King et al 2005;Bilkovic et al 2006). Land cover characteristics of watersheds can be strong indicators of degraded benthic communities (Hale et al 2004).…”

Section: Influence Of Landscape Factors On Sav Abundance Among Subestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to studies focused on water quality conditions near SAV beds, landscape analysis has been increasingly applied to identify watershed effects on estuarine responses (Comeleo et al 1996;Paul et al 2002;King et al 2005;Bilkovic et al 2006;Rodriguez et al 2007). Watershed land cover characteristics can be strong indicators of degraded estuarine health (Hale et al 2004;Brooks et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries

Weller

Gallegos

et al. 2007

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Watershed land use can affect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) by elevating nutrient and sediment loading to estuaries. We analyzed the effects of watershed use and estuarine characteristics on the spatial variation of SAV abundance among 101 shallow subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay during [1984][1985][1986][1987][1988][1989][1990][1991][1992][1993][1994][1995][1996][1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002][2003]. Areas of these subestuaries range from 0.1 to 101 km 2 , and their associated local watershed areas range from 6 to 1664 km 2 . Watershed land cover ranges from 6% to 81% forest, 1% to 64% cropland, 2% to 38% grassland, and 0.3% to 89% developed land. Landscape analyses were applied to develop a number of subestuary metrics (such as subestuary area, mouth width, elongation ratio, fractal dimension of shoreline, and the ratio of local watershed area to subestuary area) and watershed metrics (such as watershed area). Using mapped data from aerial SAV surveys, we calculated SAV coverage for each subestuary in each year during 1984-2003 as a proportion of potential SAV habitat (the area , 2 m deep). The variation in SAV abundance among subestuaries was strongly linked with subestuary and watershed characteristics. A regression tree model indicated that 60% of the variance in SAV abundance could be explained by subestuary fractal dimension, mean tidal range, local watershed dominant land cover, watershed to subestuary area ratio, and mean wave height. Similar explanatory powers were found in wet and dry years, but different independent variables were used. Repeated measures ANOVA with multiple-mean comparison showed that SAV abundance declined with the dominant watershed land cover in the order: forested, mixed-undisturbed, or mixed-developed . mixedagricultural . agricultural . developed. Change-point analyses indicated strong threshold responses of SAV abundance to point source total nitrogen and phosphorus inputs, the ratio of local watershed area to subestuary area, and septic system density in the local watershed.

show abstract

Section: Influence Of Landscape Factors On Sav Abundance Among Subestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries

Weller

Gallegos

et al. 2007

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shoreline development can directly affect local water quality and aquatic communities through the loss of intertidal habitat, changes in hydrology, increases in nutrient inputs, loss of allocthanous material, increased recreational use and a loss of natural erosion control. Shoreline hardening (generally related to upland development) affects benthic or interstitial invertebrate communities (Bilkovic et al 2006a, Seitz et al 2006, fish egg mortality (Rice 2006), predator abundances (Seitz et al 2006) and fish community integrity (Beauchamp et al 1994, Jennings et al 1999, Bilkovic et al 2005. Watershed development can have far-reaching impacts on hydrology and habitat quality that may affect aquatic communities downstream from the actual site of disturbance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Watershed development can have far-reaching impacts on hydrology and habitat quality that may affect aquatic communities downstream from the actual site of disturbance. Changes in water quality due to development (such as increased nutrient and sediment loads) affect benthic invertebrate communities (Lerberg et al 2000, Bilkovic et al 2006a, and other development effects (such as habitat fragmentation and increased impervious surfaces) can affect fish populations (Scheuerell & Schindler 2004) and degrade marsh and riparian bird community integrity (Hennings & Edge 2003, DeLuca et al 2004.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biotic responses may be due to degradation and loss of shallow water habitat, resulting in part from the construction of shoreline structures. Alterations of the riparian and nearshore environments associated with shoreline hardening projects can result in increased nearshore depth (Jennings et al 1999, Peterson et al 2000, Bilkovic et al 2006a), the loss of complexity and refugia (Jennings et al 1999, Scheuerell & Schindler 2004, a reduction in desirable allocthanous inputs, such as woody debris (Jennings et al 1999, Christensen et al 1996, and the creation of microclimates unsuitable for local species (Rice 2006). Nearshore ecosystems are probably the most affected by human activities, and changes in ecosystem integrity reflected in the responses of biological communities are a means to measure condition and manage systems (Beck et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of coastal development on nearshore estuarine nekton communities

Bilkovic¹,

Roggero²

2008

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

143

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal development affects estuarine resources by severing terrestrial-aquatic linkages, reducing shallow water habitats, and degrading ecosystem services, which is predicted to result in measurable declines in nekton community integrity. We assessed the effects of landscape features on nearshore habitats and biological communities, relating subtidal habitat, shoreline condition, upland land use and nearshore fish communities in a Chesapeake Bay tributary, the James River, Virginia. Both upland development and the placement of erosion control structures on the shoreline were associated with reduced fish community integrity, and shoreline alterations were linked with the amount of subtidal structural habitat in the nearshore. Ecological thresholds in nekton community integrity were evident at ≥23% developed land use within 200 and 1000 m buffer increments. Nekton assemblages at sites with low development (< 23%) and natural or riprap shorelines were different from all other combinations of altered conditions (low development with bulkhead, and high development with riprap or bulkhead). Species composition along natural or riprap revetment shorelines with low upland development tended to be diverse and inclusive of tidal marsh species, while highly developed sites or bulkhead shorelines were dominated by a few generalist species. The complex interaction between watershed (both nearshore and inland) and shoreline development presents a unique challenge for coastal planning. Alternate moderating approaches for coastal development may include preservation of riparian buffers, the placement of living shorelines for erosion control where appropriate, and development of targeting tools to identify landscapes near an ecological threshold.

show abstract

Considering the influence of land use/land cover on estuarine biotic richness with Bayesian hierarchical models

Shamaskin

Correa

Street

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The composition of land use/land cover (LULC) in coastal watersheds has many implications for estuarine system ecological function. Land use/land cover can influence allochthonous inputs and can enhance or degrade the physical characteristics of estuaries, which in turn affects estuaries' ability to support local biota.However, these implications for estuaries are often poorly considered when assessing the value of lands for conservation. The focus of research regarding terrestrial and estuarine interfaces often evaluates how LULC may stress estuarine ecosystems, but in this study we sought to understand how LULC may both positively and negatively affect estuaries using measures of observed biotic richness as proxies for estuarine function. We investigated the influence of LULC on estuarine biotic richness with Bayesian hierarchical models using multiple geospatial data sets from 33 estuaries and their associated watersheds along the Gulf of Mexico coastal region of the United States. We designed the hierarchical models with observed species richness of three functional groups (FGs) (i.e., pelagic fishes, forage fishes, and shrimp) from fishery-independent trawl surveys as response variables. We then set salinity and water temperature as trawl-specific covariates and measures of influence from six LULC classes as estuary-specific covariates and allowed the models to vary by estuary, trawl program, salinity, and temperature. The model results indicated that the observed richness of each FG was both positively and negatively associated with different LULC classes, with estuarine wetlands and forested lands demonstrating the strongest positive influences on each FG. The results are generally consistent with past studies, and the modeling framework provides a promising way to systematically quantify LULC linkages with the biotic health of estuaries for the purposes of potentially valuing the estuarine implications of land conservation.

show abstract

Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats

Cited by 80 publications

References 41 publications

Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries

Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries

Effects of coastal development on nearshore estuarine nekton communities

Considering the influence of land use/land cover on estuarine biotic richness with Bayesian hierarchical models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About