Zostera Marina) by Mobile Epifauna and Macrofauna
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2002 Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on the Utilization of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) by Mobile Epifauna and Macrofauna Scott R. Marion College of William and Mary - Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Marion, Scott R., "Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on the Utilization of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) by Mobile Epifauna and Macrofauna" (2002). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539617783. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25773/v5-65zy-f462 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON THE UTILIZATION OF EELGRASS (ZOSTERA M ARINA ) BY MOBILE EPIFAUNA AND MACROFAUNA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the School of Marine Science The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of M aster of Science by Scott R. Marion December 2002 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science X c J t d . 1 Y U ^ Scott R. Marion Approved, December 2002 Robert J. Orth, Ph.D. Committee Chairman/Advisor J/Emmett Duffy, Ph.D Carl T. Friedrichs, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 2 METHODS............................................................................................................................................. 6 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................ 15 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 22 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................................49 VITA 97 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the generous support and encouragement of my advisor, Dr. Robert J. Orth. His unending enthusiasm for field ecology has been a continuous source of positive energy and ideas, and his generous provision of research support made this work possible. I also wish to acknowledge the guidance and helpful reviews of my committee members, Dr. Romuald N. Lipcius, Dr. J. Emmett Duffy, and Dr. Carl T. Friedrichs. Their critical reviews and thoughtful suggestions greatly improved the manuscript. I am especially grateful to the many members of the VIMS SAV Program who gave enormous assistance. Amy Tillman, Eric Slominsky, and Amy Macdonald were tireless sample pickers. Jamie Fishman, A1 Lombana, David Combs, Jacques van Montfrans, and JJ Orth assisted with seagrass transplanting and sample collection. David Wilcox was an invaluable resource for GIS expertise and data processing. Finally, I would like to thank the Virginia Salt Water Recreational Fishing License Fund for project funding, and the VIMS Mini-Grant program, the VIMS Dean’s Fellowship, and the Commonwealth of Virginia for additional financial support. iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. S item ap ...........................................................................................................................................61 2. Experimental eelgrass plots.......................................................................................................62 3. Arrangement of experimental plots at the James River site ............................................... 63 4. Edge-interior sampling scheme ................................................................................................64 5. Shoot density in transplanted eelgrass plots in the spring ..................................................65 6. Grass biomass in core samples .................................................................................................66 7. Diver estimates of seagrass percent cover ............................................................................67 8. Photo-interpreted seagrass percent cover .............................................................................. 68 9a. Densities of six epifaunal amphipods in core samples ......................................................69 9b. Densities of isopods and infaunal amphipods in core samples .......................................70 9c. Densities of fauna in suction samples ..............................................................................71 10a. Edge and interior densities of six epifaunal amphipods in cores samples ........... 72 10b. Edge and interior densities of isopods and infaunal amphipods in cores samples...73 10c. Edge and interior densities of fauna in suction samples......................................... 74 11. Caprellid amphipod size distribution ...................................................................................75 12. Biomass and secondary production in core samples ..........................................................76 13. Edge and interior densities for total individuals in suction samples ............................ 77 14. Size distribution of blue crabs ................................................................................................78 15. Aerial photograph of fall Medium plot ................................................................................79 16. Simulation model examining effects of skewed sampling effort....................................80 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Relative abundance of fauna in core and suction samples ................................................ 81 2. Number of samples included in core analyses ........................................................................82 3. Summary of statistical results.....................................................................................................83 4. Split-plot ANOVA results for spring core samples at both sites ...............................84-85 5. Split-plot ANOVA results for core samples within each site .....................................86-87 6. Two-way ANOVA results for spring core samples......................................................... 88 7. One-way ANOVA results for Plot Type effects on core samples..................................... 89 8. One-way ANOVA results for Site effects within each plot type ................................... 90 9. Paired f-test results for core and suction samples .............................................................. 91 10. ANCOVA examining trends in grass biomass along each site...................................... 92 11. Split-plot ANOVA results for spring suction samples at both sites ...............................93 12. Split-plot ANOVA results for spring suction samples at single sites .............................94 13. Two-way ANOVA results for suction samples................................................................ 95 14. One-way ANOVA results for Plot Type effects within each site ................................ 96 15. Perimeter:area ratios of experimental plots .........................................................................97 vi Abstract The threat to biodiversity posed by increasing rates of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation necessitates an understanding of the consequences of spatial pattern for natural communities. Reduction of patch size, loss of habitat, changes in the quantity and proportion of habitat edge, and reduced connectivity among habitats can all shape ecological processes and faunal behavior. Seagrass habitats provide a natural model system for examining spatial influences on marine fauna, but separating the effects of habitat structure, environmental conditions, and spatial pattern is difficult because shoot density, percent cover, and hydrodynamic regime often co-vary with patch size. This study used experimentally manipulated seagrass patches to measure the response of seagrass-associated fauna to patch size and bed fragmentation on the scale of meters. Replicate plots were created by transplanting eelgrass, Zostera marina, at two sites in the lower Chesapeake Bay, USA. Plots were designed to examine effects of patch size and bed fragmentation on the density of epibenthic decapod and peracarid crustaceans (crabs, shrimps, amphipods, and isopods), gastropods, and demersal fish. Densities of most species examined did not vary significantly among fragmented and unfragmented plots, or among plots with differing amounts of habitat area. Furthermore, seasonal edge effects were observed within both fragmented and unfragmented plots for