Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research Second Quarterly Report To South Florida Water Management District District Agreement CP-050281 Submitted To: TOMMABA~S . FORT MYERS SERVICE CENTER SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2301 MCGREGOR BLVD. FORT MYERS, FL 33901 Submitted By: Dr. Brad Robbins . Mote Marine Laboratory . 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway . Sarasota, FL 34236 Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 1010 April 15, 2005 15 April 2005 Tomma Barnes Fort Myers Service Center South Florida Water Management District 2301 McGregor Blvd Fort Myers, FL 33901 [email protected] Ref: District Agreement CP-050281, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research, Quarterly Letter Report Dear Ms. Barnes: Please accept this letter and accompanying material as Mote Marine Laboratory's second Quarterly Letter Report for Caloosahatchee River and Estuary (CRE) research. The data contained within are summaries of raw numbers that have not been checked for accuracy. The data are an incomplete sampling of the HF (high flow) sample period and thus only partially represent that time period. Introduction Theobjective of this research is to continue examining the dynamics of SAV and its faunal associated community (e.g. juvenile fish) with regard to changes in salinity and season. Results of this research will provide information applicable to restoration and management efforts, with the goal·of incorporating research-derived predictions of changes in community structure associated with habitat changes. The research reported here is a continuation of two studies (C-12109 & C-12836) funded by the District, which ended September 31, 2004. Both of these studies were awarded to Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) with Dr. Brad Robbins, Manager ofMML's Landscape Ecology Program acting as a co-PIon C-12109 and as the PIon C-12836. The research addresses four (4) specific questions: 1. How do salinity fluctuations affect SAV habitats (including the recovery of Vallisneria americana); 2. How do salinity fluctuations affect fish population densities within SA V habitats; CP-050281, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research Robbins, PI 3. Does faunal utilization of SAV habitats vary with SAY species, habitat configuration, salinity, and/or season; and 4. What is the impact of timed water releases on the composition and densities of fish species in SAV beds? The objective of Year One is to combine the two previous studies (C-12109 & C- 12836) into a comprehensive research program. All sites are being sampled three times during each sampling period, with each period corresponding to three District-defined seasonal periods: 1) MarchiApril to June/July - high recruitment (HR) 2) July to November - high flow (HF) 3) November to March -low productivity (LP) Data Collection Summary Task 1: Site selection This task has been completed. A description of sampling sites can be found in Quarterly Report Y 1Q 1. Task 2: Flora Both floral species, Vallisneria americana and Ruppia maritima, found in the River displayed an increase in the number of sites they were found when compared to the previous sampling period. Specifically, the percentage of sites where V americana increased to 56% (Figure 1) from 22% found during the previous sampling period (HFY1). Similarly, R. maritima increased to 19% from <10%. Within the estuary, Halodule wrightii and Thalassia testudinum were found at each of the sampling sites (as defined by their dominant seagrass species: Halodule, Syringodium, and Thalassia) during the LP sampling period (Figure 2). In contrast, Syringodium jiliforme was only found at the Syringodium sites (Figure 2). Mean shoot density was seen to vary temporally within the sampling period (Figure 3). This variation was by species and site. Canopy height (reflected by mean maximum blade length; Figure 4) also varied through time with an increase seen. Seagrass biomass by sites without regard for species was also seen to increase temporally (Figure 5). Of interest, biomass at the Thalassia sites increased sooner than biomass at the other sites and by March biomass values were nearly equal at the Syringodium and Thalassia sites. Task 3: Fauna A total of 16,323 fish representing 36 species (8 animals were collected but not identifiable and are listed as UNID; Table 1) were captured from the Estuary during the LP sampling period. The greatest diversity of species (26) was found at the Syringodium and Thalassia sites, while fewer (23) species were found at the Halodule sites. The greatest abundance of fish (Table 1) was captured from the Thalassia sites (51 % of all fish captured) followed by Syringodium (29%) and Halodule (20%). At both the Syringodium sites, Anchoa hepsetus (striped anchovy) was the dominant fish species representing 88% of all fish captured compared to the Thalassia sites (40%) 2 CP-OS0281, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research Robbins, PI and the Halodule sites (9%). Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) was the most numerous species at the Halodule (S9%) and Thalassia (48%) sites. A total of 44S fish representing 14 species (Table 2) were captured in the River during the LP sampling period. Of these, 91 % were captured with the 21 m seine. The three most frequently captured species were Eucinostomus spp. (29%), Anchoa mitchilli (2S%), and Menidia spp. (17%). Two macro invertebrate species, Callinectes sapidus (blue crab; n = 13) and Penaeus duorarum (pink shrimp; n = 297) were also captured from the Estuary sites. Penaeus duorarum were captured in the greatest numbers from Halodule (164) followed by Thalassia (129) while few (4) were found in the Syringodium sites. Comparatively, three C. sapidus were captured from two sites (VN2 and VNS) in the River and two Penaeus duorarum individuals were captured at VN3. Task 4: Benthic Fauna Because benthic samples require laboratory sorting and identification, the data reported here are from the HF sampling period rather than the LP sampling period. The LP benthic samples will be completed and a summary of these data will be reported in Q3Yl Report. Data from the HR sampling event from the previous year from the VAL project have been included for comparison. During the HF sampling period, no clear pattern is evident when comparing upriver to downriver sites (Figure 6). The greatest numbers of Rangia cuneata were collected from VNl (site furthest upstream) while no animals were collected from the most downstream site, VN4 (Figure 7). Of interest, small and medium sized R. cuneata were only collected in the middle river sites with VN2 having all three size classes, VNS having only medium individuals and VN3 having small and large individuals with the medium size class not represented. This contrasts with VNl where only large animals were found. Task S: Water Quality Salinity within the River varied seasonally with higher salinities measured during the early part of the LP sample period (Figure 8). The most downriver sites, VN3 and VN4, were found to have the highest salinities. Salinity within the Estuary sites (Figure 9) displayed a slight seasonal trend with water sweetening at the end of the sampling period. River temperatures varied seasonally with March being warmer than February and January, and spatially with the upriver sites typically warmer than the downstream sites (Figure 10). The same seasonal trend was seen in the Estuary (Figure 11) where the Halodule sites were always warmer than the Thalassia sites, which were always warmer than the Syringodium sites. This pattern probably reflects depth differences. Dissolved oxygen (DO) patterns within the River (Figure 12) and within the Estuary (Figure 13) were vague and no conclusions can be drawn from these data in isolation. This is also true of pH in the Estuary. However, River pH varied seasonally and from upriver to downriver (Figure 14). During the LP sampling period, light attenuation collected from both the River (Figure IS) and Estuary (Figure 16) varied over time yet indicated that ample light was available for plant growth. 3 CP-050281, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research Robbins, PI Task 6: Data Analysis Data are being entered and proofed, as they are collected. Other than summarizing the data as we have done in this report, data analysis will not be included in the first three Quarterly reports, but will be conducted and included in the Annual report. Sincerely yours, Bradley D. Robbins, Ph.D. Manager Michelle Gittler Staff Biologist Landscape Ecology Program 4 CP-050281, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary Research Robbins, PI Table 1: Fish species and number of individuals captured in the Estuary during the LPY1 sampling period. Sites are identified by their dominant seagrass species. Sites Species Common Name Halodule Syrin20dium Thalassia Anchoa hepsetus striped anchovy 290 4200 3295 Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy 1 16 6 Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch 6 Chasmodes saburrae Florida blenny 4 1 Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 2 3 Citharichthys macrops spotted whiff 4 2 4 Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout 1 4 2 Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow 4 3 Diplectrum /()rmosum sand2_erch 4 14 467 Eucinostomus spp. mojarra 606 233 161 Floridichthys carpio Goldspotted topminnow 3 1 Fundulus grandis Gulf killifish 2 Gobiosoma bosc nakedgoby 2 7 Gobiosoma robustum code goby 17 12 Harengula jaguana scaled sardine 1 2 Hippocampus zosterae dwarf seahorse 5 1 35 Lagodon rhomboides Ipinfish 1932 205 4009 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 9 Lucania parva rainwater killifish 104 15 Lutjanus griseus mangrove snapper 3 Lutjanus synagris lane snapper 1 39 Menidia