DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report October, 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report October, 2020 Community assisted documentation of pre-restoration physical and biological characteristics of the Harper Estuary Final Report October, 2020 Prepared for: Kitsap County Prepared by: Washington Sea Grant Community assisted documentation of pre-restoration physical and biological characteristics of the Harper Estuary Project Personnel: PI – Kate Litle, Washington Sea Grant (WSG) CoPI, Shoreline Monitoring – Jason Toft, University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences CoPI, Crab Team – Emily Grason, WSG Contract Manager – Christina Kereki, Kitsap County Project Coordinator – Jeff Adams, WSG Wetland Ecosystem Team ResearCh Scientist – Juhi LaFuente, UW SAFS Crab Team Coordinator – Amy Linhart, WSG Crab Team Program Assistant – Kelly Martin, WSG Community volunteers – Alex Brown, Kathie Gustin, Cindy Hardi, Roger Hardi, Jim Heytvelt, Marlene Keltner, JaCKie McClure, Chris Moore, Eric Schnepp, Joyce Schnepp, Dale Walker and Ed Weston. Funding Statement: Funding for this estuary monitoring project and report was provided by the Washington Department of Ecology [Grant Agreement No. OTGP-2018-KiCoCD- 00007] Suggested Citation: Litle, K, JD Toft, EW Grason, C Kereki, JW Adams, A Linhart, JR LaFuente, K Martin. 2020. Community assisted documentation of pre-restoration physical and biological characteristics of the Harper Estuary Final Report. Washington Sea Grant. 38 pages. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 5 METHODS 5 SHORELINE MONITORING 5 BeaCh WraCK 5 Logs 6 InseCts 6 Sediment Size 6 VertiCal Profiles 6 CRAB TEAM MONITORING 8 Trapping ProtoCol 10 Molt Survey ProtoCol 11 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 12 SHORELINE MONITORING 12 BeaCh WraCK 12 Logs 14 InseCts 14 Sediment Size 15 VertiCal Profiles 16 CRAB TEAM 19 Trapping 19 Molt Survey 28 NEXT STEPS 30 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 30 PHOTOS 31 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Washington Sea Grant (WSG) collaborated with the University of Washington’s (UW) Wetland Ecosystem Team (WET) to conduct baseline shoreline and estuary monitoring at the Harper Estuary complex in 2019 and 2020, engaging community members in monitoring activities and using approaches outlined in the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox (https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/toolbox/home) and in the WSG Crab Team volunteer handbook (https://wsg.washington.edu/crabteam/getinvolved/toolbox/). The approach and baseline data colleCted over the course of the project are presented in this document and provide a foundation for understanding what, if any, changes to the measured biological and physical features measured take place once more free tidal exchange has been reestablished between Harper’s upper estuary and outer bay. 4 INTRODUCTION Washington Sea Grant (WSG) collaborated with the University of Washington’s (UW) Wetland Ecosystem Team (WET) to conduct baseline shoreline and estuary monitoring at the Harper Estuary in 2019 and 2020. Using approaches outlined in the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox (https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/toolbox/home) and in the WSG Crab Team volunteer handbook (https://wsg.washington.edu/crabteam/getinvolved/toolbox/) and engaging volunteers from within the Harper community and Kitsap County, project personnel collected physical and biological data relevant to changes that are likely to result from the proposed Olympiad Drive bridge construction and Harper Estuary restoration. The monitoring work was a natural extension of WSG’s experience working with volunteers to monitor Kitsap shorelines and of WET’s development of the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox and shoreline monitoring throughout the Puget Sound region. The proposed bridge on Olympiad Drive will remove an undersized, 36-inch culvert and have a 12 -foot span, reestablishing the tidal influence in the upper estuary. In particular, increased accessibility to the upper estuary for mobile fauna, wrack material and h0abitat structure like logs is expeCted to reestablish habitat structure, movement of fish, crab and other mobile species and sources of organic material and nutrients that may be limited by the Current conditions. Engaging community members in this projeCt greatly increased the data collection capacity while more deeply connecting to the Harper Estuary eCosystem and the results of restoration efforts. This report represents the culmination of shoreline and Crab Team monitoring efforts in the Harper Estuary complex in 2019 and 2020. METHODS SHORELINE MONITORING With established protocols from the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox (https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/toolbox/home) that are used by volunteer and professional monitors throughout Puget Sound, UW Wetland Ecosystem Team Staff characterized baseline conditions at 50m transects (parallel to the shoreline) within Harper Estuary. Three sites were surveyed (1) the outer beach, (2) the inner bay, and (3) the estuary upstream of the road (Figure 1). Surveys were conducted once at each transect during two years, on May 7, 2019 and June 24, 2020. Beach Wrack We surveyed wrack percent cover of algae, eelgrass, terrestrial, and human derived debris deposited on the beach on an ebbing tide using a 0.1 m2 quadrat at ten 5 random points along a 50 m transect parallel to the beach. Wrack depth and overall width of the wracK-line were measured at each quadrat. Logs We counted the number of logs (driftwood) and the landward depth of the accumulated logs (log-line) perpendiCular to the shoreline at five random points along a 50m transect. Insects We surveyed for inseCts, a contributing food sourCe for out-migrating juvenile salmonids, using fallout traps (40 x 25 cm plastic bins with a small amount of soapy water). These were deployed for 24 hours to sample terrestrial insects and arthropods in vegetated supratidal habitats at five random points along a 50m transect. Samples were preserved in 70% isopropanol and returned to the laboratory and sorted, identified, and enumerated under dissecting microscopes. Sediment Size We surveyed surface sediment grain size using visual estimation, and subsurface (5 cm) when possible, at five random points along the same 50m transect where beach wrack was surveyed. A visual estimate was made of the sediment percent composition in five size classes: cobble (>6 cm), pebble (4 mm-6 cm), granule (2-4 mm), sand (“gritty” up to 2 mm), and silt/clay (smooth between your fingers), as well as shell hash. Vertical Profiles We used a transit and stadia rod to measure the vertical change along three profile lines (Figure 1) chosen to represent locations that are both expected to remain relatively unchanged and that are expected to be reshaped as a result of the restoration efforts. This approach is well suited for volunteer assistance from community members and can be readily repeated in the future with minimal time commitment from project staff. 6 Figure 1. Map of vertiCal profile lines (Profile 1-3) and habitat transeCt locations (BeaCh, Bay, Estuary). 7 CRAB TEAM MONITORING WSG's Crab Team is an established, region-wide, volunteer monitoring program for mobile fauna in pocket estuaries, lagoons and tide flats that targets crustaceans with molt surveys and both crustaceans and fish with baited trapping. Volunteers receive training in March, then survey established sites from April through September. Monitoring within the Harper Estuary complex during the course of this researCh included 3 additional sites to expand the spatial assessment of the baseline data collection. Training: Crab Team volunteers received training in MarCh 2019 during a one-day new volunteer training and/or a half-day returning volunteer training. While COVID- 19 restrictions prevented training of new volunteers in 2020, the program’s critical service status allowed existing volunteers to monitor as planned while using precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Crab Team Monitoring: Standard Crab Team surveys were conducted at the previously established site in the upper estuary during April through September of 2019 and 2020. Protocols are briefly summarized below. A detailed protoCol handbook, data sheets and additional resources are available as part of the online Crab Team volunteer toolbox. https://wsg.washington.edu/crabteam/getinvolved/toolbox/ Enhanced Crab Team Trapping: To gather information at a spatial scale relevant to restoration efforts, Crab Team trapping was conducted at three additional loCations in May and August of 2019 and 2020 with an additional collection in April of 2019. The estuary complex was divided into four zones (Figure 2) for spatial and temporal assessment of mobile epifauna, via trapping and molt searches during the 2019 and 2020 field seasons. The delineation of these zones was based on geographic features expected to influence the ecological community, primarily those related to freshwater and saltwater inundation regimes. • Zone 1: Most open and marine influenced. Primarily tidal flat with shallow channel draining from restored salt marsh (Zone 2) as well as freshwater stream inputs. This is the only zone with no substantial barriers to marine tidal flow or wind fetch. • Zone 2: Upland salt marsh, with recently restored tidal influence through breached berm. High sill elevation means this marsh is shallow and infrequently inundated. Limited freshwater input. Substantial vegetation with small shallow pools and channels and lots of vegetation cover primarily composed of Salicornia (pickleweed). • Zone 3: Tidal mudflat upstream of culvert, with narrow, shallow stream channel. Mudflat largely devoid of vegetation, with pedestaling banks and saltmarsh vegetation. Channel combines
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COMPLETE LIST of MARINE and SHORELINE SPECIES 2012-2016 BIOBLITZ VASHON ISLAND Marine Algae Sponges
    COMPLETE LIST OF MARINE AND SHORELINE SPECIES 2012-2016 BIOBLITZ VASHON ISLAND List compiled by: Rayna Holtz, Jeff Adams, Maria Metler Marine algae Number Scientific name Common name Notes BB year Location 1 Laminaria saccharina sugar kelp 2013SH 2 Acrosiphonia sp. green rope 2015 M 3 Alga sp. filamentous brown algae unknown unique 2013 SH 4 Callophyllis spp. beautiful leaf seaweeds 2012 NP 5 Ceramium pacificum hairy pottery seaweed 2015 M 6 Chondracanthus exasperatus turkish towel 2012, 2013, 2014 NP, SH, CH 7 Colpomenia bullosa oyster thief 2012 NP 8 Corallinales unknown sp. crustous coralline 2012 NP 9 Costaria costata seersucker 2012, 2014, 2015 NP, CH, M 10 Cyanoebacteria sp. black slime blue-green algae 2015M 11 Desmarestia ligulata broad acid weed 2012 NP 12 Desmarestia ligulata flattened acid kelp 2015 M 13 Desmerestia aculeata (viridis) witch's hair 2012, 2015, 2016 NP, M, J 14 Endoclaydia muricata algae 2016 J 15 Enteromorpha intestinalis gutweed 2016 J 16 Fucus distichus rockweed 2014, 2016 CH, J 17 Fucus gardneri rockweed 2012, 2015 NP, M 18 Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis red spaghetti 2012, 2014, 2015 NP, CH, M 19 Hildenbrandia sp. rusty rock red algae 2013, 2015 SH, M 20 Laminaria saccharina sugar wrack kelp 2012, 2015 NP, M 21 Laminaria stechelli sugar wrack kelp 2012 NP 22 Mastocarpus papillatus Turkish washcloth 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 NP, SH, CH, M 23 Mazzaella splendens iridescent seaweed 2012, 2014 NP, CH 24 Nereocystis luetkeana bull kelp 2012, 2014 NP, CH 25 Polysiphonous spp. filamentous red 2015 M 26 Porphyra sp. nori (laver) 2012, 2013, 2015 NP, SH, M 27 Prionitis lyallii broad iodine seaweed 2015 M 28 Saccharina latissima sugar kelp 2012, 2014 NP, CH 29 Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii sea noodles 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 NP, CH, M, J 30 Sargassum muticum sargassum 2012, 2014, 2015 NP, CH, M 31 Sparlingia pertusa red eyelet silk 2013SH 32 Ulva intestinalis sea lettuce 2014, 2015, 2016 CH, M, J 33 Ulva lactuca sea lettuce 2012-2016 ALL 34 Ulva linza flat tube sea lettuce 2015 M 35 Ulva sp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Green Crab Invasion: a Global Perspective with Lessons From
    THE GREEN CRAB INVASION: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, WITH LESSONS FROM WASHINGTON STATE by Debora R. Holmes A Thesis: Essay ofDistinction submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Environmental Studies The Evergreen State College September 2001 This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree by Debora R. Holmes has been approved for The Evergreen State College by Member of the Faculty 'S"f\: 1 '> 'o I Date For Maria Eloise: may you grow up learning and loving trails and shores ABSTRACT The Green Crab Invasion: A Global Perspective, With Lessons from Washington State Debora R. Holmes The European green crab, Carcinus maenas, has arrived on the shores of Washington State. This recently-introduced exotic species has the potential for great destruction. Green crabs can disperse over large areas and have serious adverse effects on fisheries and aquaculture; their impacts include the possibility of altering the biodiversity of ecosystems. When the green crab was first discovered in Washington State in 1998, the state provided funds to immediately begin monitoring and control efforts in both the Puget Sound region and along Washington's coast. However, there has been debate over whether or not to continue funding for these programs. The European green crab has affected marine and estuarine ecosystems, aquaculture, and fisheries worldwide. It first reached the United States in 1817, when it was accidentally introduced to the east coast. The green crab spread to the U.S. west coast around 1989 or 1990, most likely as larvae in ballast water from ships. It is speculated that during the El Ni:fio winter of 1997-1998, ocean currents transported green crab larvae north to Washington State, where the first crabs were found in the summer of 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Invertebrate Field Guide
    Marine Invertebrate Field Guide Contents ANEMONES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 AGGREGATING ANEMONE (ANTHOPLEURA ELEGANTISSIMA) ............................................................................................................................... 2 BROODING ANEMONE (EPIACTIS PROLIFERA) ................................................................................................................................................... 2 CHRISTMAS ANEMONE (URTICINA CRASSICORNIS) ............................................................................................................................................ 3 PLUMOSE ANEMONE (METRIDIUM SENILE) ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 BARNACLES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ACORN BARNACLE (BALANUS GLANDULA) ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 HAYSTACK BARNACLE (SEMIBALANUS CARIOSUS) .............................................................................................................................................. 4 CHITONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Beyond the Mortality of Bycatch: Sublethal Effects of Incidental Capture on Marine Animals
    Biological Conservation 171 (2014) 61–72 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Review Looking beyond the mortality of bycatch: sublethal effects of incidental capture on marine animals a, a a,b b a Samantha M. Wilson ⇑, Graham D. Raby , Nicholas J. Burnett , Scott G. Hinch , Steven J. Cooke a Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada b Pacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada article info abstract Article history: There is a widely recognized need to understand and reduce the incidental effects of marine fishing on Received 14 August 2013 non-target animals. Previous research on marine bycatch has largely focused on simply quantifying mor- Received in revised form 10 January 2014 tality. However, much less is known about the organism-level sublethal effects, including the potential Accepted 13 January 2014 for behavioural alterations, physiological and energetic costs, and associated reductions in feeding, growth, or reproduction (i.e., fitness) which can occur undetected following escape or release from fishing gear. We reviewed the literature and found 133 marine bycatch papers that included sublethal endpoints Keywords: such as physiological disturbance, behavioural impairment, injury, reflex impairment, and effects on RAMP reproduction,
    [Show full text]
  • Olympia Oyster (Ostrea Lurida)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 56 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 30 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm) Gillespie, G.E. 2000. COSEWIC status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-30 pp. Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Graham E. Gillespie for writing the provisional status report on the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea lurida, prepared under contract with Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The contractor’s involvement with the writing of the status report ended with the acceptance of the provisional report. Any modifications to the status report during the subsequent preparation of the 6-month interim and 2-month interim status reports were overseen by Robert Forsyth and Dr. Gerald Mackie, COSEWIC Molluscs Specialist Subcommittee Co-Chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’huître plate du Pacifique (Ostrea lurida) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES an Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals
    OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES An Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals By Paul Rudy, Jr. Lynn Hay Rudy Oregon Institute of Marine Biology University of Oregon Charleston, Oregon 97420 Contract No. 79-111 Project Officer Jay F. Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 Performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Table of Contents Introduction CNIDARIA Hydrozoa Aequorea aequorea ................................................................ 6 Obelia longissima .................................................................. 8 Polyorchis penicillatus 10 Tubularia crocea ................................................................. 12 Anthozoa Anthopleura artemisia ................................. 14 Anthopleura elegantissima .................................................. 16 Haliplanella luciae .................................................................. 18 Nematostella vectensis ......................................................... 20 Metridium senile .................................................................... 22 NEMERTEA Amphiporus imparispinosus ................................................ 24 Carinoma mutabilis ................................................................ 26 Cerebratulus californiensis .................................................. 28 Lineus ruber .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protection Island Aquatic Reserve Management Plan
    S C C E Protection Island O R U Aquatic Reserve Management Plan November 2010 E E S R A L A U U R A T T A N Acknowledgements Aquatic Reserves Technical Advisory Committee, 2009 Brie Van Cleve, Nearshore and Ocean Washington State Department of Policy Analyst, Washington State Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife Peter Goldmark, Commissioner of Dr. Alison Styring, Professor of Public Lands Biological Sciences, The Evergreen Bridget Moran, Deputy Supervisory, State College Aquatic Lands Dr. Joanna Smith, Marine Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy Orca Straits District John Floberg, Vice President of David Roberts, Assistant Division Stewardship and Conservation Manager Planning, Cascade Land Conservancy Brady Scott, District Manager Phil Bloch, Biologist, Washington State Department of Transportation Aquatic Resources Division Kristin Swenddal, Aquatic Resources Protection Island Aquatic Reserve Division Manager Planning Advisory Committee, 2010 Michal Rechner, Assistant Division Betty Bookheim, Natural Resource Manager, Policy and Planning Scientist Kyle Murphy, Aquatic Reserves Bob Boekelheide, Dungeness River Program Manager Audubon Center Betty Bookheim, Environmental Darcy McNamara, Jefferson County Specialist, Beach Watchers Michael Grilliot, Marc Hershman Marine Dave Peeler, People for Puget Sound Policy Fellow, Aquatic Reserves David Freed, Clallam County Program Associate MRC/Beach Watchers David Gluckman, Admiralty Audubon GIS and Mapping Jeromy Sullivan, Port Gamble S’Klallam Michael Grilliot, Marc Hershman Marine
    [Show full text]
  • Life History of the Native Shore Crabs Hemigrapsus Oregonensis And
    3/12/2018 people.oregonstate.edu/~yamadas/crab/ch5.htm Life History of Hemigrapsus oregonensis and Hemigrapsus nudus Objective of study Materials and Methods Results SEX SPECIES TIDE LEVEL SITE Discussion Prediction of the possible impact of Carcinus maenas on the populations of Hemigrapsus oregonensis and Hemigrapsus nudus Life History of the native shore crabs Hemigrapsus oregonensis and Hemigrapsus nudus and their distribution, relative abundance and size frequency distribution at four sites in Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Jennifer Oliver and Anja Schmelter Life History of Hemigrapsus oregonensis and Hemigrapsus nudus Much is known about the life history of the two common intertidal shore crabs Hemigrapsus oregonensis and Hemigrapsus nudus. The following summary was compiled from Batie 1975; Behrens Yamada and Boulding 1996 and 1998; Cohen et. al 1995; Daly 1981; Grosholz and Ruiz 1995; Harms and Seeger 1989; Low 1970; Morris Abbot and Haderlie 1980; Naylor 1962; and Rudy and Rudy 1983. Both of these species are Brachyuran crabs belonging to the family Grapsidae. These crabs can be distinguished from other crabs by their square carapace and eyes, which are set out towards the front corners of their carapace. The characteristic features of Hemigrapsus oregonensis are the dull olive-colored hairs on its legs, and a carapace width ranging up to 34.7 mm for males and 29.1 mm for females. This carapace is colored yellow-green or gray and has a four-lobed anterior margin (Plate 1). H. oregonensis occurs from the high to low intertidal zones of bays and estuaries from Resurrection Bay (Alaska) to Bahia de Todos Santos (Baja California).
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphology of the Eye of the Purple Shore Crab, Hemigrapsus Nudus
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1975 The morphology of the eye of the purple shore crab, Hemigrapsus nudus Sharon E. Heisel Portland State University Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Heisel, Sharon E., "The morphology of the eye of the purple shore crab, Hemigrapsus nudus" (1975). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2163. 10.15760/etd.2160 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN A:aSTRACTJ"~OF THE THESIS OF Sharon E. Heisel for the Master.",of Soience in BiOlogy presented May 21, 1975;. Title: The Morphology of the Eye of the Purple Shore .APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: 'Dr. Leonar l.IDpson Dr'.. Rl.chard B. F=e.o""-lr::-.b""""eilOolos...-:;.....-·----------- Dr.• 1if" H. Fahrenbach Dr. David T. Clark . A structural analysis of the compound eye of Hemi­ grapsus npdus expands the basis of functional analysis of d~9apod Crustacean eyes. Contradictory evidence for dip- integration of rhabdomeric microvilli.. in the absence of light prompted observation of ~ nudus eyes after 146 days in darkness. Eyes were fixed with formalin and glutaraldehyde and 2. :postfixed with osmiUm tetroxide for' electron and l~ght microscopy. Light~and dark-adapted eyes we~e also'ob­ served with hot water fixation' and paraf~in emPeq~ent.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERTIDAL ZONES and SPECIES This Activity Will Help You Discover the Variety of Species That Call the Intertidal Zones in B.C
    EXPLORING Suggested age range: Grades K-5 INTERTIDAL Materials required: Scissors, glue or tape, pencil crayons or markers. Time required: 1 hour + ZONES Illustrations by Amira Maddison PACIFIC NORTHWEST COAST INTERTIDAL ZONES AND SPECIES This activity will help you discover the variety of species that call the intertidal zones in B.C. home. H ow to: To create your own intertidal poster, print this document single-sided. Read about the cool beings and colour them in (use a book or internet search and try to colour accordingly). Glue or tape page 9 and 10 together to form the poster base. Then cut out the coloured pictures of the different species and glue them onto the poster, according to the intertidal zone in which they are found. What is the tide? High and low tide are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. The tidal force causes the earth and the water to bulge. These bulges of water happen during high tides. High tide occurs in two places at once: 1) on the side of the earth closest to the moon because it experiences the moon’s pull the strongest. 2) on the side of the earth facing away from the moon because of earth’s rotational pull is stronger than the moon’s gravitational pull. Everywhere else on the earth the ocean recedes to form low tide. The cycle of two high tides and two low tides occurs W? NO within a 24-hour span in most places on coasts U K YO around the world. DID King tides (a non-scientific term) are exceptionally high What is the intertidal zone? tides.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: General Introduction
    Anneke M van den Brink Reproduction in crabs: strategies, invasiveness and environmental influences thereon i Thesis committee Promotor Prof. Dr. H.J. Lindeboom Professor of Marine Ecology Wageningen University Co-promotors Prof. Dr. A.C. Smaal Professor of Sustainable Shellfish Culture Wageningen University Prof. Dr. C. McLay Retired Marine Biologist University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Other members Prof. Dr. J. van der Meer, NIOZ, Den Burg, The Netherlands Prof. Dr. A.J. Murk, Wageningen University Prof. Dr. J-C. Dauvin, Université de Caen Basse Normandie, France Dr. P. Clark, Natural History Museum, London, UK This thesis was conducted under the auspices of the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE). ii Reproduction in crabs: strategies, invasiveness and environmental influences thereon Anneke M van den Brink Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University by the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. dr. M.J. Kropff, in the presence of the Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board to be defended in public on Tuesday 16 April 2013 at 4 p.m. in the Aula. iii Anneke Maria van den Brink Reproduction in crabs: strategies, invasiveness and environmental influences thereon 164 pages PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen. The Netherlands (2013) With references, with summary in English and Dutch ISBN: 978-94-6173-523-2 iv For my three true loves: Jonathon, Sebastian and Mathias Hutchens v Preface Preface It has been many years since I first started studying crabs. Now that my current study draws to a close I can’t help but think how those feisty little creatures have somehow become part of me, from the same silly jokes I hear a thousand times to the insessent urge to look under rocks on the shore to see what creatures I can find.
    [Show full text]
  • Intertidal Zones Cnidaria (Stinging Animals)
    Intertidal Zones Cnidaria (stinging animals) Green anemone (Anthopleura anthogrammica) The green anemone is mainly an outer-coast species. Microscopic algae live symbiotically inside this anemone, give the anemone its green color, and provide it with food from photosynthesis. The green anemone can be solitary or live in groups, and are often found in tidepools. This anemone only reproduces sexually. Touch the anemone very gently with one wet finger and see how it feels! Aggregating anemone (Anthopleura elegantissima) The aggregating anemone reproduces both sexually and asexually. It reproduces sexually by releasing eggs and sperm into the water. To reproduce asexually, it stretches itself into an oval column, and then keeps “walking away from itself” until it splits in half. The two “cut” edges of a half-anemone heal together, forming a complete, round column, and two clones instead of one. Aggregate anemone colonies are known for fighting with other colonies of these asexually- produced clones. When different clone colonies meet they will attack each other by releasing the stinging cells in their tentacles. This warfare usually results in an open space between two competing clone colonies known as “a neutral zone”. Aggregate anemones also house symbiotic algae that give the animal its green color. The rest of the food it needs comes from prey items captured by the stinging tentacles such as small crabs, shrimp, or fish. Genetically identical, clones can colonize and completely cover rocks. Be very careful when walking on the rocks…aggregating anemones are hard to spot at first and look like sandy blobs. Watch where you step so you don’t crush anemone colonies.
    [Show full text]