Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Benthic Habitats in
Florida Bay
Michael J. Durako1, M. O. Hall2, M. J. Butler3, D. C. Behringer4
1Department of Biology and Marine Biology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA2Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL, USA3Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA4Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
How I used to view FB Benthic Habitats
Florida Bay Benthic Habitats
Prager and Halley 1997
Importance of Hardbottom Habitats
Behringer & Butler 2006 Oecologia
Stable isotope analysis suggests that:• algae, not seagrass, is the major source of primary productivity for hard-bottom higher trophic webs (sponge, mollusc, echinoderm, lobster)
A Brief Historical Perspective
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it,"
George Satayana
Seagrass Die-off
• First observed summer of 1987 by fishing guides in northern Bay bights, following several years of drought & no hurricanes
• Most severe in central and SW bay
• Only affected dense Thalassia testudinumin basins and edges of basins – 4000 ha lost 24000 ha affected
• Halodule wrightii rapidly colonized die-off areas
• Waters initially clear (1988- early 91)
SPOT image W of Rabbit KeyFeb 1987 vs Nov 1988
Conceptual Models
Carlson & Durako Zieman et al.
Phytoplankton Blooms 1991- 1995
• Fall 1991 – Synechococcus bloom • Chronic turbidity in the western basins
– 2o seagrass mortality (1991-1998 RKB)
510000 512000 514000 516000 518000
Longitude (UTM)
2759000
2761000
2763000
2765000
2767000
Latit
ude
(UTM
)
-5.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
-0.50
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Cha
nge
inC
over
/Abu
ndan
ceVa
lue
Spring 1994Durako et al. 2002
• Sponge community structure changed
• Juvenile lobster population structure, shelter use, & seasonal recruitment changed at local, regional, & Keys-wide scales
• Hypothesized ecological linkages: blooms → sponges → lobster
Sponge Die-off & Cascading Disturbances
Photo Credit: Rod Bertelsen
Die-offs & blooms were major disturbances
• Disturbance “resets the successional clock”• 2o succession of seagrasses & hardbottom
– Thalassia SS lifespan 5-10 yr• Genets - >100 yr?
– Sponges also long lived• decades to centuries
• Recovery from disturbance– prop scars: 2-5 yrs– groundings 5 to 15 yrs– dredge holes > 30 yrs
Whitfield et al 2002
Jud Kenworthy NOAA
• Started in Spring 1995• 10 Basins• >300 stations• Systematic random
sampling• Spring & Fall• Spatial & Temporal • Distribution & Structure• Disease vs Stress • 12 macrophyte sp/groups
Fish HabitatAssessment Program (FHAP)
Modified Braun-Blanquet Scale
Braun-Blanquet - Abundance & Distribution
• 4- 8 replicate .25m2
quadrats per station
• 30 stations basin-1
FHAP
Landry 2005
Distribution
Durako 1999
Species Diversity
Calusa
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Blackwater
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Crane
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Eagle
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Madeira
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rankin
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Twin
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Whipray
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Thalassia Density and Frequency
Johnson
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rabbit
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rankin BlackwaterMadeiraWhipray
Johnson Eagle
CraneCalusaTwinRabbit
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Mea
n D
ensi
tyM
ean
Den
sity
Freq
uenc
y (%
)Fr
eque
ncy
(%)
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
FHAP
Landry 2005
Halodule Density and FrequencyBlackwater
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Calusa
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Eagle
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Johnson
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Madeira
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rabbit
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rankin
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Twin
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Whipray
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Crane
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rankin BlackwaterMadeiraWhipray
Johnson Eagle
CraneCalusaTwinRabbit
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Mea
n D
ensi
tyM
ean
Den
sity
Freq
uenc
y (%
)Fr
eque
ncy
(%)
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
FHAP
Landry 2005
FHAP-SF 2005-?
Macrophyte Distribution & Abundance 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Macrophyte Abundance 1995-2007
Johnson Key Blackwater Sound
FHAP
FHAP-SF
Old vs New BB
Coral Distribution & Abundance
Chartrand & Durako accepted
2006
Photobiology
S. radians & T. testudinum exhibit similar response to light environment
May serve as an eco-indicator where T. testudinum is absent
Will CERP affect coralcommunities in FB?
Twin populationLowest Fv/Fm
Lowest S toleranceAcclimation
Chartrand et al. submitted
Will CERP affect Sponge & Octocoralcommunities?•All sponges tested survived sub-optimal salinities better in winter than summer; the reverse was true of octocorals.
•Sponge & Octocoral survival was similar whether exposed to low salinity for a few days or a few weeks (i.e., press vs. pulse experiments).
0
25
50
75
100
C. alloclada H. lachne I. campana I. variabilis S. vesparium
15 ppt 25 ppt 30 ppt 35 ppt
% S
urv
ived
Species
0
25
50
75
100
C. alloclada H. lachne I. campana I. variabilis S. vesparium
15 ppt 25 ppt 35 ppt 45 ppt
% S
urv
ived
Species
Butler unpubl. data
Angular Sea WhipPurple Sea Plume
n = 6 - 16 per treatment
15 20 453525
NoneSurvived
Salinity (psu)
20
40
60
80
100
0
Perc
ent S
urvi
val
n = 8 per treatment
15 20 4535
NoneSurvived
25
NoneSurvived
NoneSurvived NA
Salinity (psu)
Sponges
summer
winter
Octocoralssummer winter
Hard-bottom Monitoring: 2002 - 2007
2002 - 20072002 Only
Sites• 132 sites in 2002; 32 -40 sites in 2003-2007
Methods• surveyed annually in June/July• 4 permanent 2 x 25m transects/site• 16 permanent 1m2 quadrats/site
Measurements• Abundance of 55 taxa (24 spp. sponge)• Size structure selected sponges & octocorals• Lobster population structure & disease
Impacts of Recent Algal Blooms on Hard-Bottom Communities
Before
After
Pre-bloom & Post-bloom Surveys 2007 -2008
Survey locations
• 18 sites chosen from central region of ODU / FMRI hard-bottom monitoring sites
• Sessile fauna surveys: July & Oct 2007• Lobster surveys: July 2007 & Mar 2008
Moderate ImpactsSevere ImpactsModerate ImpactsSevere ImpactsModerate ImpactsSevere Impacts
Loggerhead sponges: ↓ 67%Vase sponges: ↓ 90%Other sponges: ↓ 50%Commercial sponges: ↓ 95%
Severe Impacts- 22 of 24 sponge species killed
Severe Impacts- 22 of 24 sponge species killed
Loggerhead sponges: ↓ 100%Vase sponges: ↓ 100%Other sponges: ↓ 90%Commercial sponges: ↓ 100%
Moderate ImpactSevere ImpactModerate ImpactSevere Impact
Little or No Impact
Summary of 2007 Bloom Effects on Sponges
• Impact of blooms on hard-bottom communities appears to be similar to that in 1991-1992, although bloom genesis different
• Sponge die-off was widespread and full recovery will take decades if no further blooms
• Sponge tolerance may be related to species-specific difference in filtration efficiencies
• Ecosystem filtration capacity and habitat structure is greatly diminished in impacted areas, with cascading effects on juvenilelobster abundance and aggregation with possible effects on theirpredator-prey and disease dynamics
Banktops
• Not affected by die-off• However, >11,500 in prop scars w/in FB &
they are (Hallac et al. in press & poster)
Kevin Kirsch & Jud Kenworthy NOAA
Global Climate Change• Sea Level
– Banks are predicted to keep up, however, basin depths are predicted to
• Prop scarring/groundings ? • chance of stratification in basins
– potential for O2 stress• potential for light limitation for benthic macrophytes
Jud Kenworthy NOAA
Global Climate Change• ↓ pH (aka Ocean Acidification)
– Affect CO2 & CO32- availability
• (Campbell & Fourqurean) Stable carbon isotope ratios reflect differences in carbon acquisition
• (Koch) Temp & pH affects O2 demand, carbonate dissolution,clonal growth & reproductive ecology
www.wbgu.de/Images/sn_2006_en/4.1-2.png
Global Climate Change• Temperature
– (Bergh) Variation in coral bleaching and species resiliency
– Defoliation of seagrasses – esp. on banktops– (Koch et al.) BOD & ↓Ruppia flowering
Global Climate Change• Hurricane frequency/intensity?
Tt distribution & abundanceBefore vs After Irene
WQ Effects on Benthic Habitats
– Herbert & Fourqurean• P & S control Tt productivity
– Halun & Fourqurean• nutrients, grazing, nutrients+grazing → Tt,Sf, & Hw
– Frankovich et al.• P, S & clarity affect spatio-temporal dynamics of SAV in the
Lakes region of FB– Fourqurean
• Long-term eutrophication of nearshore seagrasses
• 14 poster presentations on Benthic Habitats– Salinity, nutrients, temperature, light, prop scars, &
modeling
Thank You
Disease, Oxygen & Sulfide
Borum et al. 2004Durako and Kuss 1994
Bay-to-Region Scale Benthic Habitat Assessments
Fourqurean et al. 2002
FHAP
Johnson Key
Eastern Bay
Central BayWestern Bay
BLK
Ecological Zones based onT. testudinum morphometrics
Hackney and Durako 2005
West East
North-CentralSouth-Central
Ecological Zones based on light availability
Phlips et al. 1995
Syringodium Density and FrequencyWhipray
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Twin
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rankin
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rabbit
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Madeira
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Johnson
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Eagle
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Crane
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n A
bund
ance
0
1
2
3
4
5
Calusa
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Blackwater
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Mea
n Ab
unda
nce
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rankin BlackwaterMadeiraWhipray
Johnson Eagle
CraneCalusaTwinRabbit
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Mea
n D
ensi
tyM
ean
Den
sity
Freq
uenc
y (%
)Fr
eque
ncy
(%)
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
Mea
n D
ensi
ty
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
FHAP
Landry 2005
Thalassia
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
200
400
600
800
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Halodule
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Halophila
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Syringodium
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ruppia
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Acetabularia
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Caulerpa
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Drift Reds
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Halimeda
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Penicillus
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sargassum
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Florida Bay- Overall
Macrophyte Density and Frequency
Batophora
95S
95F
96S
96F
97S
97F
98S
98F
99S
99F
00S
00F
01S
01F
02S
02F
03S
03F
04S
Bay
Sca
le A
bund
ance
0
50
100
150
200
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sampling Design
15 permanent transect stationsco-located near long-term WQmonitoring stations.
Sampled twice yr-1
Epiphytes & leaf morphology
Macrophyte Abundance 1995-2007
Johnson Key Twin Key Blackwater Sound
% Killed0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Spongia barbaraSpongia cheris
Spongia gramineaIrcinia felix
Hippospongia lachneHytrios sp.
Anthosigmella variansAaptos sp.
Haliclona/GeodiaLissodendoryx sp.
Aplysinia sp.Halichondria melandocia
Ircinia campanaChondrilla nuclea
Tedania ignisTethya crypta
Adocia sp.Ircinia sp.
Speciospongia vespariaNiphates erecta
Cinachyra sp.
Mean+ 1sd
Vulnerability of Sponge Species(Percentage of each species killed on bloom-impacted sites)
MostTolerant
LeastTolerant
