Restoration Potential of Several Native Species of Bivalve Molluscs for Water Quality Improvement in Mid-Atlantic Watersheds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 37, No. 5, 1121–1157, 2018. RESTORATION POTENTIAL OF SEVERAL NATIVE SPECIES OF BIVALVE MOLLUSCS FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN MID-ATLANTIC WATERSHEDS DANIELLE A. KREEGER,1* CATHERINE M. GATENBY2 AND PETER W. BERGSTROM3 1Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, 110 S. Poplar Street, Suite 202, Wilmington, DE 19063; 2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 1101 Casey Road, Basom, NY 14013; 3PO Box 504, Saxtons River, VT 05154 ABSTRACT Bivalve molluscs provide water quality benefits throughout mid-Atlantic watersheds, such as Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River basins. Whereas most of the attention has focused on the role of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica, there are many other bivalve species, in both salt and fresh waters, that provide similar benefits. This review summarizes current knowledge regarding the capacity of diverse mid-Atlantic bivalves to filter particles and potentially enhance water clarity and quality. Species with the greatest clearance rates and population carrying capacity were also considered for their restoration and enhancement potential. Compared with eastern oysters, several additional species of saltwater bivalves and freshwater mussels are reported to filter water at rates that merit restoration attention and have been shown to attain significant population sizes. More work is needed to estimate system-carrying capacity and to eliminate restoration bottlenecks for some species—all bivalve species have constraints on their distribution and abundance. Nevertheless, a diversified, watershed-wide bivalve restoration strategy is likely to be more successful than a monospecific focus because it would address pollutant issues in more diverse places and multiple habitats along the river to estuary continuum. KEY WORDS: bivalve, restoration, water quality, clearance, filtration INTRODUCTION data sources and observations from scientists, managers, and restoration practitioners in the mid-Atlantic study area. By Bivalve molluscs provide water quality benefits throughout contrast, there is a rich published literature on the feeding coastal watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware physiology, restoration, and culture methods of commercially River Basin. Most of the attention on those benefits has focused important species [e.g., oysters Crassostrea virginica;blue on the role of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, mussels Mytilus edulis (Linnaeus, 1758)], and for those species 1791) in estuarine ecosystems (Newell 1988, Pomeroy et al. the reader is directed to comprehensive reviews by other au- 2006, Cerco & Noel 2007). There are a number of other bivalve thors (Bayne & Newell 1983, Kennedy et al. 1996, Cranford species, however, that might provide similar benefits in other et al. 2011). habitat niches that span the salinity gradient, including Mid-Atlantic bivalves include diverse species that live in headwater streams, large rivers, tidal fresh and brackish saltwater, freshwater tidal, and freshwater nontidal areas, zones, and saltwater areas. The water quality benefits of these extending from the headwaters to the mouths of coastal bays. bivalves are poorly understood, compared with those of Kreeger and Kraeuter (2010) tallied more than 60 species of oysters. The intent of this review is to summarize the knowl- bivalves in the Delaware River Basin, for example. Generally, edge about the filtration ability of bivalves (other than oys- the same mid-Atlantic species occur in the Chesapeake Bay as in ters) that live in mid-Atlantic watersheds, such as the the Delaware River, with the exception that there are 15 more Chesapeake and Delaware systems. This review also discusses species of freshwater mussels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. their conservation status and restoration prospects to assist Some of these species are rare, but many are abundant enough scientists and coastal resource managers throughout the mid- to be considered ‘‘ecologically significant’’ (Kreeger & Kraeuter Atlantic region in planning and prioritizing research and man- 2010), meaning that they can reach sufficient population agement activities. abundance to provide water quality benefits or other ecosystem The intended audience for this review includes scientists, services (Table 1). managers, and restoration practitioners, and, therefore, the The ability of filter-feeding bivalves to improve water prose and depth of referencing vary among sections that are quality has been the subject of intense research and debate for likely to be of greatest interest to different sectors. The imbal- the past 30 y or more (Pomeroy et al. 2006, Newell et al. anced referencing also reflects variability in the quality and 2007). Most of the attention on those benefits has focused on quantity of available information for commercial versus non- theroleoftheeasternoysterCrassostrea virginica,which commercial, and freshwater versus saltwater species. Much of inhabits subtidal and low intertidal estuarine areas having a the available data on the range, physiology, and restoration salinity of 10–30. Some of the other bivalve species live in potential for species other than oysters are not in peer-reviewed niches that can overlap with C. virginica, such as the ribbed literature. To summarize what is known about their potential mussel Geukensia demissa (Dillwyn, 1817), which is a pre- benefits to water quality, preferred habitat niches, and their res- dominantly intertidal species. Other species live in areas toration promise, this review necessarily considers unpublished where oysters are absent, such as freshwater mussels *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Table 1). A variety of mussel species live in various niches DOI: 10.2983/035.037.0524 extending from small headwater streams to tidal fresh zones 1121 1122 KREEGER ET AL. TABLE 1. Summary of ecosystem services furnished by oysters, ribbed mussels and freshwater mussels categorized according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (adapted from Kreeger & Kraeuter 2010). Bivalve natural capital Relative importance scores Categories Ecosystem services Oysters Ribbed mussels Freshwater mussels Provisioning Dockside product (e.g., seafood and shells) OOO – O Regulating Shoreline and bottom protection (e.g., wave attenuation) OOO OO O Shoreline and bottom stabilization (e.g., bed stability) OO OOO OO Supporting Structural habitat (e.g., essential fish habitat) OOO OO OO Biodiversity (e.g., imperiled species) – – OOO Biofiltration (e.g., seston removal) OOO OOO OOO Biogeochemistry (e.g., nutrient transformation) OO OO OO Trophic (e.g., prey value) OOOOO Cultural, spiritual historical, Watermen lifestyle, ecotourism OO human health Native American heritage (e.g., shells) OO – OOO Watershed indicator (e.g., environmental status and trends) OOO OO OOO Bio-assessment (e.g., toxicity testing) OOO OO OOO of estuaries (Ortmann 1911, 1919, Bogan & Ashton 2016). A In areas where the bivalve population is dense relative to the singular focus on oyster restoration may therefore miss op- residence time of the water mass, bivalve filter feeding can result portunities to enhance ecosystem services in areas of the wa- in a direct improvement in water clarity and light penetration tershed that oysters do not inhabit. (Cloern 1982, Sousa et al. 2009, Cerco & Noel 2010). The actual The concept of restoring (and conserving) populations of effects of filter feeding on water quality depend on the volumes bivalves other than oysters for the principal purposes of sus- of water filtered by the combined population biomass of the taining and improving water quality has been gaining attention. bivalves, the temperature which regulates physiological activity, For example, one of the actions under the 2009 Executive and the concentration and composition of particles in the water. Order 13,508, ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration’’ Population biomass density (e.g., kilograms of dry tissue mass was ‘‘FW20 White paper: evaluate native bivalve restoration per hectare) is therefore a useful metric for gauging the eco- for water quality improvement.’’ Action 1 was stated as follows: logical impacts of bivalve assemblages in situ. Population bio- ‘‘Complete literature review of relevant studies on the ability of mass density combines the numerical abundance (per hectare) tidal and nontidal (freshwater and estuarine) bivalves to enhance and body size (per animal); therefore, smaller bivalves can still water quality. Where the literature review finds gaps, identify have a large impact on water quality if they achieve sufficient topic areas and funding needed to support new studies to evaluate densities. Water clarity depends on concentrations of total the effect of native bivalves on Bay water quality.’’ suspended solids, and areas with a greater biomass density of This review was written in response to that action. Although bivalves will have greater potential for enhancing water clarity investments in bivalve populations can be considered a new best than areas with lower population biomass. Reductions in spe- management practice (BMP) for enhancing water quality, these cific pollutants, such as particulate forms of nutrients and efforts should not be viewed as a replacement for traditional pathogens, depend on biomass density of the bivalve pop- BMP. Indeed, the water quality benefits of bivalves will scale ulation and the composition of the pollutants in the seston. mainly with their population biomass, which will be constrained