1 / 15

Karen Kesler , Vincent Politano , Kennedy Paynter

Differentiating the impact of the physical and biotic components of the eastern oyster, Crassostea virginica , on the benthic reef community . Karen Kesler , Vincent Politano , Kennedy Paynter. The physical and biotic contributions of Crassostrea virginica. Physical Structure:

joann
Download Presentation

Karen Kesler , Vincent Politano , Kennedy Paynter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Differentiating the impact of the physical and biotic components of the eastern oyster, Crassosteavirginica, on the benthic reef community Karen Kesler, Vincent Politano, Kennedy Paynter

  2. The physical and biotic contributions of Crassostreavirginica • Physical Structure: • Hard surface for settlement • Complex arrangement of oyster shells (Luckenbach et al. 2005) • Complexity correlated with higher biomass, abundance, and species richness (Cranfield et al 2004, Coen et al. 2007) • Reduces turbidity (Meyer and Townsend 2000) • Biotic Input: • Benthic-pelagic couplers • Biodeposit production

  3. Past Research • Tolley and Volety 2005: C. virginica • No overall difference between live and shell treatments • Some species level differences • Silver Botts et al. 1996: Dreissenaspp • no differences in amphipods, turbellarians, and hydrozoans abundances • Chironomid abundance higher on live mussels • Stewart et al. 1998: Dreissenaspp • macroinvertebrate biomass higher on live mussels

  4. Question and Hypotheses • Is the Crassostreavirginicareef community predominantly responding to the presence of the oyster structure or is there an additional response to the biotic component of a live oyster? • Ho: The two treatments will have equal abundance and biomass. • May indicate structure as the dominating influence • HA: The live oyster treatment will have higher abundance and/or biomass. • May indicate an additional benefit of live oyster

  5. Methods • In July 2009, eighty C. virginica clumps were collected from the Chester River, MD • Clumps were cleaned of all epibiotics • Half of the clumps were shucked and glued shut to reassemble the structure of a live oyster • 4 clumps were zip tied to a 57.8 cm2 tray • 10 trays of live oysters and 10 trays of oyster shell of equal complexity were deployed into the Patuxent River, MD • Trays were placed 3 m apart in a 12 m by 15 m grid

  6. Methods • In October 2009 three trays of each treatment were removed for a mid-experiment evaluation • Oysters and epifauna were preserved in ethanol • Epifauna were cleaned from the oysters, identified, enumerated, and biomassed • ANOVA with an adjusted alpha was performed

  7. Results: Least Abundant Taxa

  8. Results: Most Abundant Taxa

  9. Results: Taxa with Lowest Biomass

  10. Results: Taxa with Highest Biomass

  11. Discussion • No difference in reef community biomass or abundance • Structure may have been a stronger influence on community development than the biotic component • Tidal movement and wave action may have influenced results

  12. What’s Next ? • Remaining 14 trays moved to deeper water in November 2009 • Reduced influence of tidal and wave action • Removed in July 2010 • Currently processing trays • New data will present a more refined data set

  13. Acknowledgements • Paynter Lab staff and students • Kyle Rambo: Naval Air Station, Patuxent River • Oyster Recovery Partnership (ORP) • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) • Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District

  14. References • Coen, LD, RD Brumbaugh, D Bushek, R Grizzel, MW Luckenbach, MH Posey, SP Powers, and SG Tolley. 2007. Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 341: 303-307. • Cranfield, HJ, AA Rowden, DJ Smith, DP Gordon, and KP Michael. 2004. Macrofaunal assemblages of benthic habitat of different complexity and the proposition of a model of biogenic reef habitat regeneration in Foveaux Strait, New Zealand. Journal of Sea Research 52: 109- 125. • Luckenbach, MW, LD Coen, PG Ross, Jr. and JA Stephen. 2005. Oyster reef habitat restoration: relationships between oyster abundance and community development based on two studies in Virginia and South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research 40: 64-78. • Meyer, DL, and EC Townsend. 2000. Faunal utilization of created intertidal eastern oyster (Crassostreavirginica) reefs in the southeastern United States. Estuaries 23(1): 34-45. • Silver Botts,P, BA Patterson and DW Schloesser. 1996. Zebra mussel effects on benthic invertebrates: physical or biotic? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(2): 179-184. • Stewart, TW, JG Miner, and RL Lowe. 1998. Quantifying mechanisms for zebra mussel effects on benthic macroinvertebrates: organic matter production and shell-generated habitat. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17(1): 81-94. • Tolley, SG and AK Volety. 2005. The role of oysters in habitat use of oyster reefs by resident fishes and decapod crustaceans.  Journal of Shellfish Research 24(4):  1007-1012.

  15. Questions?

More Related