A Long-Term Study of Bivalve Recruitment, Biomass, and Grazing Rate Patterns with Varying Freshwater Outflow
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prepared in cooperation with California Department of Water Resources Bivalve Effects on the Food Web Supporting Delta Smelt— A Long-Term Study of Bivalve Recruitment, Biomass, and Grazing Rate Patterns with Varying Freshwater Outflow By Jeff S. Crauder, Janet K. Thompson, Francis Parchaso, Rosa I. Anduaga, Sarah A. Pearson, Karen Gehrts, Heather Fuller, and Elizabeth Wells Open-File Report 2016–1005 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Crauder, J.S., Thompson, J.K., Parchaso, F., Anduaga, R.I., Pearson, S.A., Gehrts, K., Fuller, H., and Wells, E., 2016, Bivalve effects on the food web supporting delta smelt—A long-term study of bivalve recruitment, biomass, and grazing rate patterns with varying freshwater outflow: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1005, 216 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161005. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) and Bureau of Reclamation for funding the biomass/grazing rate analyses. A special thanks to California Department of Water Resources Environmental Monitoring Program personnel Scott Waller, Roberta Elkins, Eric Santos, Nick Van Ark, Brianne Sakata, and Dan Riordan and Nick Sakata (Reclamation) for their work in the field collecting the samples and Tiffany Brown, Rachel Pisor, and Melanie LeGro for their time spent in the lab sorting the samples. Thanks to Hydrozoology for sorting and taxonomy and the U.S. Geological Survey personnel who processed the bivalves and compiled data for this report. iii Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Project Background and the Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................... 3 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Stations and Samples ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Field Collection Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Analytical Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Biomass .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Potamocorbula Biomass ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Corbicula Biomass .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Overlap Biomass (Stations Where Corbicula and Potamocorbula Co-Occur) ..................................................... 7 Biomass Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Grazing Rate ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Recruitment ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Potamocorbula Recruitment ................................................................................................................................ 9 Corbicula Recruitment ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Overlap Recruitment (Stations Where Corbicula and Potamocorbula Co-Occur) ................................................ 9 Recruitment Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Mean Size ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Potamocorbula Mean Size ................................................................................................................................ 11 Corbicula Mean Size ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Overlap Mean Size (Stations Where Corbicula and Potamocorbula Co-Occur) ................................................ 11 Mean Size Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Our Questions ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 How do Potamocorbula and Corbicula populations at a specific location respond to seasonal and interannual changes in salinity? How does salinity variability influence successful recruitment of these bivalves? ............. 12 Is the magnitude of the grazing rate such that we would expect the feeding of the bivalves to limit seasonally the biomass of phytoplankton, copepods, bacteria, and microzooplankton? ..................................................... 13 Selected References ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................................. 101 Figures 1. Map showing location of bivalve sampling stations in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 2. Map showing median biomass of Corbicula fluminea in grams per square meter (gm-2) before the arrival of Potamocorbula amurensis to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1987. ........... 18 3. Map showing median bivalve biomass in grams per square meter (gm-2) after the arrival of Potamocorbula amurensis to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1987. .................................... 19 4. Map showing median grazing rate (GR) of Corbicula fluminea in cubic meters per square meter per day (m3m-2d-1) before the arrival of Potamocorbula amurensis to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1987.. ................................................................................................................................ 20 iv 5. Map showing median grazing rate (GR) in cubic meters per square meter per day (m3m-2d-1)after the arrival of Potamocorbula amurensis to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1987. ....... 21 6. Map showing median recruitment of Corbicula fluminea in number of recruits per 0.05 meters squared (#/0.05m²) before the arrival of Potamocorbula amurensis to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1987. ................................................................................................................................. 22 7. Map showing median recruitment of Corbicula fluminea and Potamocorbula amurensis in number of recruits per 0.05 meters squared (#/0.05m²) after the arrival of Potamocorbula amurensis to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1987. ................................................................................. 23 8. Graph showing Potamocorbula amurensis biomass at station D6 from 2007–2013. ................................... 24 9. Graph showing Potamocorbula amurensis biomass at station D41A from 1987–1996. .............................. 24 10. Graph showing Potamocorbula amurensis biomass at station D41A from 1996–2003. .............................. 25 11.