DOCSLIB.ORG

Beach Nourishment: a Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beach Nourishment: a Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts ASMFC Habitat Management Series # 7 November 2002 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1444 Eye Street NW, Sixth Floor Washington DC 20005 ASMFC Habitat Management Series # 7 Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts by Karen Greene Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1444 Eye Street, NW, Sixth Floor Washington, DC 20005 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance of Carrie Selberg (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission) was instrumental in the preparation of this report. Her ongoing guidance and editorial comments were invaluable. Jennifer Lowery (National Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring, MD) contributed significantly by gathering scientific reports and periodicals, and her help is greatly appreciated. Special thanks to Mike Street (NC Division of Marine Fisheries) and Bob Van Dolah (SC Marine Resource Division) for reviewing this report in its entirety and providing substantial edits and direction. This report was reviewed and approved by the ASMFC Habitat Committee (Bill Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chair; Gail Wippelhause, ME Department of Marine Resources; Paul Caruso, MA Division of Marine Fisheries; Chris Powell, RI Department of Environmental Management; Lance Stewart, University of Connecticut; Karen Chytalo, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Bruce Freeman, NJ Department of Environmental Protection; Tom Fote, Commissioner from NJ; Jeff Tinsman, DE Division of Fish and Wildlife; Robert Grabb, VA Marine Resources Commission; Mike Street, NC Division of Marine Fisheries; Melvin Shepard; Rob Dunlap and Bob Van Dolah, SC Department of Natural Resources; Phil Flournoy, GA Department of Natural Resources; Ken Haddad, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Dianne Stephan and Tom Bigford, National Marine Fisheries Service, Wilson Laney and Jed Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The contribution of additional literature and personal insight from Tracy Rice (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh, NC), Charles Peterson (UNC Institute of Marine Sciences), Ken Lindeman (Environmental Defense Fund), and Orrin Pilkey (Duke University Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences) is gratefully acknowledged. Other individuals who reviewed this report and provided contributions include Nancy Jackson (New Jersey Institute of Technology), Keith Mille (FL Fish and Wildlife Commission), Tony Watkinson (VA Marine Resources Commission), and Frank Steimle (National Marine Fisheries Service Sandy Hook). This is a publication of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cooperative agreement award number NA17FG2205, National Marine Fisheries Service purchase order number DG133F-02-SE-0736, and Wallop Breaux grant agreement number A-4-1. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS_______________________________________________________ ii INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________________ 1 MANAGING SHORELINE EROSION ___________________________________________ 2 Hard Stabilization _________________________________________________________________ 3 Non-Structural Alternatives_________________________________________________________ 4 Soft Stabilization __________________________________________________________________ 4 BEACH NOURISHMENT _____________________________________________________ 4 Dredging and Emplacing Sand ______________________________________________________ 6 Federally Funded Beach Nourishment Projects_________________________________________ 8 State Beach Nourishment Policies ____________________________________________________ 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS _________________________________________________ 9 Cumulative Impacts ______________________________________________________________ 10 THE MINE SITE ________________________________________________________________ 12 Sediment_______________________________________________________________________________12 Physical Habitat _________________________________________________________________________14 Benthos________________________________________________________________________________15 Ridges and Swales _______________________________________________________________________18 Turbidity_______________________________________________________________________________18 Fisheries _______________________________________________________________________________19 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles ___________________________________________________________21 THE TARGET BEACH ___________________________________________________________ 21 Sediment_______________________________________________________________________________22 Beach Bulldozing ______________________________________________________________________23 Benthos________________________________________________________________________________23 Emerita talpoida, Donax spp., and Ocypode spp.________________________________________________25 Beach Bulldozing ______________________________________________________________________27 Turbidity_______________________________________________________________________________28 Sea Turtles _____________________________________________________________________________30 Shorebirds______________________________________________________________________________31 Fisheries _______________________________________________________________________________31 Physical Habitat _________________________________________________________________________34 RESEARCH NEEDS_________________________________________________________ 36 Mine site ________________________________________________________________________ 37 Target Beach ____________________________________________________________________ 37 Adjacent Communities ____________________________________________________________ 39 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________________________ 39 iii Turbidity _______________________________________________________________________ 40 Research Design and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ________________________ 41 CONCLUSION______________________________________________________________ 41 Bibliography________________________________________________________________ 44 Appendix A The Federal Beach Nourishment Process ____________________________ 70 Appendix B State Beach Nourishment Programs ________________________________ 77 Appendix C Fish Habitat ___________________________________________________ 118 iv INTRODUCTION Many beaches along the east coast of the United States are eroding, which threatens habitat, property, public infrastructure, and the tourist industry. Loss of sand can be attributed to natural factors such as storms, sea level changes, waves, currents, tides, wind, bathymetry, shoreline geology, sand supply and quality, and sand movement among dunes, beach, and offshore bars (Bird, 1983; NRC, 1990a). Shortages of sediment can also arise from man-made activities including construction of harbors, groins, jetties, and seawalls; shoreline development; dredging of tidal inlets; damming of rivers; and beach nourishment (London et al., 1981; Kana, 1988; NRC, 1990). Of all the forces that contribute to erosion, sea level rise is one of the major global concerns that will likely affect coastlines throughout the world in the coming years. Sea level is estimated to rise approximately 20 cm by the year 2050 (IPCC, 1996), which translates to an average of 1 meter of shoreline erosion per year (Leatherman et al., 2000). Some sources estimate the total U.S. shoreline subjected to erosion will be close to 80%, while others put the total at 100%, if stable or accreting shorelines are considered short-lived (Pilkey and Dixon, 1996). Some areas will experience greater impacts than others from sea-level rise, due to local geologic rise or fall of land areas relative to global sea level changes, local geological structures, and other factors. Coastlines move in response to many of the natural forces that simultaneously act upon them in an attempt to maintain equilibrium (Williams, 2001). Shoreline erosion can lead to a loss of habitat for sea turtles, birds, fish, plants, and a host of other organisms that use the beach during some portion, or all, of their life cycle. Along barrier islands, shoreline erosion could more accurately be termed “shoreline retreat,” because the beach is not actually eroding, but is moving landward in response to a rising sea level (Pilkey, 1996). This concept applies when the barrier island is able to retreat, and there is simultaneous sand accretion on the sound side of the island. In situations where the shorefront is unable to migrate landward, the term “shoreline erosion” would be accurate. In the Mid-Atlantic Region, barrier beaches migrate in a north-south direction (Dixon and Pilkey, 1991). Erosion is also problematic when there are structures that lie in harm’s way, which require protection against impending waves and sea level rise (Pilkey, 1996). Man has attempted to halt retreating shorelines for decades in an effort to save these structures. The first documented beach nourishment project took place in this country during 1922-1923 at Coney Island, New York (Farley, 1923). During the 1930’s, the federal government became involved in dune construction activities along the Outer Banks of North Carolina. It was not until 1962, following the devastating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coastal Erosion - Orrin H
    COASTAL ZONES AND ESTUARIES – Coastal Erosion - Orrin H. Pilkey, William J. Neal, David M. Bush COASTAL EROSION Orrin H. Pilkey Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, U.S.A. William J. Neal Department of Geology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA. David M. Bush Department of Geosciences, State University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA. Keywords: erosion, shoreline retreat, sea level rise, barrier islands, beach, coastal management, shoreline armoring, seawalls, sand supply Contents 1. Introduction 2. Causes of Erosion 2.1. Sea Level Rise 2.2. Sand Supply 2.3. Shoreline Engineering 2.4. Wave Energy and Storm Frequency 3. "Special" Cases 4. Solutions to Coastal Erosion 5. The Future Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary Almost all of the world’s shorelines are retreating in a landward direction—a process called shoreline erosion. Sea level rise and the reduction of sand supply to the shoreline by damming of rivers, armoring of shorelines and the dredging of navigation channels are among the major causes of shoreline retreat. As sea levels continue to rise, sometimesUNESCO enhanced by subsidence caused – byEOLSS oil and water extraction, global erosion rates should increase in coming decades. Three response alternatives are available to "solve" the erosionSAMPLE problem. These are cons tructionCHAPTERS of seawalls and other engineering structures, beach nourishment and relocation or abandonment of buildings. No matter what path is chosen, response to the erosion problem is costly. 1. Introduction Coastal erosion is a major problem for developed shorelines everywhere in the world. Such erosion is regarded as a coastal hazard and is a common focus of local and national coastal management.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Flood Defences - Groynes
    Coastal Flood Defences - Groynes Coastal flood defences are key to protecting our coasts against flooding, which is when normally dry, low lying flat land is inundated by sea water. Hard engineering methods are forms of coastal flood defences which mitigate the risk of flooding and coastal erosion and the consequential effects. Hard Engineering Hard engineering methods are often used as a temporary measure to protect against coastal flooding as they are costly and only last for a relatively short amount of time before they require maintenance. However, they are very effective at protecting the coastline in the short-term as they are immediately effective as opposed to some longer term soft engineering methods. But they are often intrusive and can cause issues elsewhere at other areas along the coastline. Groynes are low lying wood or concrete structures which are situated out to sea from the shore. They are designed to trap sediment, dissipate wave energy and restrict the transfer of sediment away from the beach through long shore drift. Longshore drift is caused when prevailing winds blow waves across the shore at an angle which carries sediment along the beach.Groynes prevent this process and therefore, slow the process of erosion at the shore. They can also be permeable or impermeable, permeable groynes allow some sediment to pass through and some longshore drift to take place. However, impermeable groynes are solid and prevent the transfer of any sediment. Advantages and Disadvantages +Groynes are easy to construct. +They have long term durability and are low maintenance. +They reduce the need for the beach to be maintained through beach nourishment and the recycling of sand.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quick Guide to Southeast Florida's Coral Reefs
    A Quick Guide to Southeast Florida’s Coral Reefs DAVID GILLIAM NATIONAL CORAL REEF INSTITUTE NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY Spring 2013 Prepared by the Land-based Sources of Pollution Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) BRIAN WALKER NATIONAL CORAL REEF INSTITUTE, NOVA SOUTHEASTERN Southeast Florida’s coral-rich communities are more valuable than UNIVERSITY the Spanish treasures that sank nearby. Like the lost treasures, these amazing reefs lie just a few hundred yards off the shores of Martin, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties where more than one-third of Florida’s 19 million residents live. Fishing, diving, and boating help attract millions of visitors to southeast Florida each year (30 million in 2008/2009). Reef-related expen- ditures generate $5.7 billion annually in income and sales, and support more than 61,000 local jobs. Such immense recreational activity, coupled with the pressures of coastal development, inland agriculture, and robust cruise and commercial shipping industries, threaten the very survival of our reefs. With your help, reefs will be protected from local stresses and future generations will be able to enjoy their beauty and economic benefits. Coral reefs are highly diverse and productive, yet surprisingly fragile, ecosystems. They are built by living creatures that require clean, clear seawater to settle, mature and reproduce. Reefs provide safe havens for spectacular forms of marine life. Unfortunately, reefs are vulnerable to impacts on scales ranging from local and regional to global. Global threats to reefs have increased along with expanding ART SEITZ human populations and industrialization. Now, warming seawater temperatures and changing ocean chemistry from carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are also starting to imperil corals.
    [Show full text]
  • Brighton Beach Groynes
    CASE STUDY: BRIGHTON BEACH GROYNES BRIGHTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA FEBRUARY 2017 CLIENT: CITY OF HOLDFAST BAY Adelaide’s beaches are affected by a common phenomenon called ELCOROCK® longshore drift - the flow of water, in one direction, along a beach occurring as a result of winds and currents. In Adelaide longshore drift flows from south to north and it frequently erodes beaches The ELCOROCK system consists of sand- over time, particularly during storm events when tides are high and filled geotextile containers built to form sea is rough. a stabilising, defensive barrier against coastal erosion. Without sand replenishment, the southern end of Adelaide’s beaches will slowly erode and undermine existing infrastructure at The robustness and stability of Elcorock the sea/land interface. The objective of Elcorock sand container geotextile containers provide a solutions groynes, laid perpendicular to the beach, is to capture some of for other marine structures such as groynes and breakwaters. These the natural sand as well as dredged sand, that moves along the structures extend out into the wave zone coast. Over time, this process builds up the beach, particularly and provide marina and beach protection, between the groynes which results in the protection of the existing sand movement control and river training. infrastructure. The size of the container can easily be Geofabrics met with the city of Holdfast Bay in the early stages of selected based on the wave climate and the project to discuss the product, durability and previous projects other conditions ensuring stability under with a similar application. Due to recent weather events, the beach the most extreme conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Field Experiment on a Nourished Beach
    CHAPTER 157 A Field Experiment on a Nourished Beach A.J. Fernandez* G. Gomez Pina * G. Cuena* J.L. Ramirez* Abstract The performance of a beach nourishment at" Playa de Castilla" (Huel- va, Spain) is evaluated by means of accurate beach profile surveys, vi- sual breaking wave information, buoy-measured wave data and sediment samples. The shoreline recession at the nourished beach due to "profile equilibration" and "spreading out" losses is discussed. The modified equi- librium profile curve proposed by Larson (1991) is shown to accurately describe the profiles with a grain size varying across-shore. The "spread- ing out" losses measured at " Playa de Castilla" are found to be less than predicted by spreading out formulations. The utilization of borrowed material substantially coarser than the native material is suggested as an explanation. 1 INTRODUCTION Fernandez et al. (1990) presented a case study of a sand bypass project at "Playa de Castilla" (Huelva, Spain) and the corresponding monitoring project, that was going to be undertaken. The Beach Nourishment Monitoring Project at the "Playa de Castilla" was begun over two years ago. The project is being *Direcci6n General de Costas. M.O.P.T, Madrid (Spain) 2043 2044 COASTAL ENGINEERING 1992 carried out to evaluate the performance of a beach fill and to establish effective strategies of coastal management and represents one of the most comprehensive monitoring projects that has been undertaken in Spain. This paper summa- rizes and discusses the data set for wave climate, beach profiles and sediment samples. 2 STUDY SITE & MONITORING PROGRAM Playa de Castilla, Fig. 1, is a sandy beach located on the South-West coast of Spain between the Guadiana and Gualdalquivir rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 69191 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY date of the publication of the final rule PART 357ÐREGULATIONS and had concluded that they were GOVERNING BOOK-ENTRY Fiscal Service substantially identical to the uniform TREASURY BONDS, NOTES AND version. Those 28 states were BILLS 31 CFR Part 357 enumerated and listed by name 1. The authority citation for Part 357 [Department of the Treasury Circular, Public alphabetically in a footnote. continues to read as follows: Debt Series, No. 2±86] Treasury further indicated that it would publish in the Federal Register a Authority: 31 U.S.C. Chapter 31; 5 U.S.C. Regulations Governing Book-Entry 301; 12 U.S.C. 391. notice setting forth its conclusion as to Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills whether additional state enactments of 2. Appendix B to Part 357 is amended AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Revised Article 8 are ``substantially in the Section-by-Section Analysis for Fiscal Service, Treasury. identical'' to the uniform version for Section 357.11(b), in the third ACTION: Final rule. purposes of the regulations. Treasury paragraph, by revising the fourth has published such notices with respect sentence and footnote 11 to read as SUMMARY: The Department of the to 22 states: California (62 FR 26, follows: Treasury is publishing a final rule to January 2, 1997), District of Columbia Appendix B to Part 357ÐTRADES amend its TRADES Commentary (62 FR 34010, June 18, 1997), Delaware, Commentary (Appendix B of 31 CFR Part 357), to Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Montana, update the list of states that have Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North * * * * * enacted Revised Article 8 of the Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Section-by-Section Analysis Uniform Commercial Code and that Tennessee and Puerto Rico (62 FR were the subject of prior notices 61912, November 20, 1997), South * * * * * published by Treasury in the Federal Dakota (63 FR 20099, April 23, 1998), Section 357.11ÐLaw Governing Other Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California S
    LITTORAL CELLS, SAND BUDGETS, AND BEACHES: UNDERSTANDING CALIFORNIA’ S SHORELINE KIKI PATSCH GARY GRIGGS OCTOBER 2006 INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline By Kiki Patch Gary Griggs Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz California Department of Boating and Waterways California Coastal Sediment Management WorkGroup October 2006 Cover Image: Santa Barbara Harbor © 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project www.californiacoastline.org Brochure Design & Layout Laura Beach www.LauraBeach.net Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline Kiki Patsch Gary Griggs Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chapter 2: An Overview of Littoral Cells and Littoral Drift 11 Chapter 3: Elements Involved in Developing Sand Budgets for Littoral Cells 17 Chapter 4: Sand Budgets for California’s Major Littoral Cells and Changes in Sand Supply 23 Chapter 5: Discussion of Beach Nourishment in California 27 Chapter 6: Conclusions 33 References Cited and Other Useful References 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he coastline of California can be divided into a set of dis- Beach nourishment or beach restoration is the placement of Ttinct, essentially self-contained littoral cells or beach com- sand on the shoreline with the intent of widening a beach that partments. These compartments are geographically limited and is naturally narrow or where the natural supply of sand has consist of a series of sand sources (such as rivers, streams and been signifi cantly reduced through human activities.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERTIDAL ZONATION Introduction to Oceanography Spring 2017 The
    INTERTIDAL ZONATION Introduction to Oceanography Spring 2017 The Intertidal Zone is the narrow belt along the shoreline lying between the lowest and highest tide marks. The intertidal or littoral zone is subdivided broadly into four vertical zones based on the amount of time the zone is submerged. From highest to lowest, they are Supratidal or Spray Zone Upper Intertidal submergence time Middle Intertidal Littoral Zone influenced by tides Lower Intertidal Subtidal Sublittoral Zone permanently submerged The intertidal zone may also be subdivided on the basis of the vertical distribution of the species that dominate a particular zone. However, zone divisions should, in most cases, be regarded as approximate! No single system of subdivision gives perfectly consistent results everywhere. Please refer to the intertidal zonation scheme given in the attached table (last page). Zonal Distribution of organisms is controlled by PHYSICAL factors (which set the UPPER limit of each zone): 1) tidal range 2) wave exposure or the degree of sheltering from surf 3) type of substrate, e.g., sand, cobble, rock 4) relative time exposed to air (controls overheating, desiccation, and salinity changes). BIOLOGICAL factors (which set the LOWER limit of each zone): 1) predation 2) competition for space 3) adaptation to biological or physical factors of the environment Species dominance patterns change abruptly in response to physical and/or biological factors. For example, tide pools provide permanently submerged areas in higher tidal zones; overhangs provide shaded areas of lower temperature; protected crevices provide permanently moist areas. Such subhabitats within a zone can contain quite different organisms from those typical for the zone.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTROL of .ALLUVIAL RIVERS by STEEL JETTIES By
    CONTROL OF .ALLUVIAL RIVERS BY STEEL JETTIES by E. 1. Carlson and R. A. Dodge, Jr. A paper to be presented at The First Water Resources Engineering Conference of The American Society of Civil Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, May 14-18, 1962 CONTROL OF ALLUVIAL RIVERS BY STEEL JETTIES by E. J. Carlsonl / and R. A. Dodge, Jr. 2 / SYNOPSIS Both field and laboratory studies were conducted to refine the methods used in the design of steel jetty fields for river aline- ment. A set of dimensionless friction head-loss curves, verified by model studies are developed and described. Using the developed curves and reconnaissance field data, a method is given for predict- ing the changes in a riverbed after the designed jetty field is installed. /Head, Sediment Investigations Unit, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Engineering Laboratories, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 2 /Hydraulic Engineer, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Engineering Laboratories, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. INTRODUCTION Steel jacks and jetties have been used successfully by the Corps of Engineers, highway departments, railway companies, and others to prevent damage to riverbanks, levees, bridge abutments, and other structures. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers are using them to stabilize the channel of the Rio Grande within the floodway in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. (1)1 / The individual jack unit consists of three angle irons, 12 or 16 feet in length placed at 90° angles in three planes and joined at their cen- ters, Figure 1. Wire is laced through the angle irons in a standard pattern to tie them together.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleaning Symbiosis Among California Inshore Fishes
    CLEANING SYMBIOSIS AMONG CALIFORNIA INSHORE FISHES EDMUNDS. HOBSON' ABSTRACT Cleaning symbiosis among shore fishes was studied during 1968 and 1969 in southern California, with work centered at La Jolla. Three species are habitual cleaners: the seAoriF, Ozyjulis californica; the sharpnose seaperch, Phanerodon atripes; and the kelp perch, Brachyistius frenatus. Because of specific differences in habitat, there is little overlap in the cleaning areas of these three spe- cies. Except for juvenile sharpnose seaperch, cleaning is of secondary significance to these species, even though it may be of major significance to certain individuals. The tendency to clean varies between in- dividuals. Principal prey of most members of these species are free-living organisms picked from a substrate and from midwater-a mode of feeding that favors adaptations suited to cleaning. Because it is exceedingly abundant in a variety of habitats, the seiiorita is the predominant inshore cleaning fish in California. Certain aspects of its cleaning relate to the fact that only a few of the many seiioritas present at a given time will clean, and that this activity is not centered around well-defined cleaning stations, as has been reported for certain cleaning fishes elsewhere. Probably because cleaners are difficult to recognize among the many seiioritas that do not clean, other fishes.generally do not at- tempt to initiate-cleaning; rather, the activity is consistently initiated by the cleaner itself. An infest- ed fish approached by a cleaner generally drifts into an unusual attitude that advertises the temporary existence of the transient cleaning station to other fish in need of service, and these converge on the cleaner.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Are the Important Predators of Sea Turtle Nests at Wreck Rock Beach?
    Who are the important predators of sea turtle nests at Wreck Rock beach? Juan Lei and David T. Booth School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, St. Lucia, Australia ABSTRACT Excessive sea turtle nest predation is a problem for conservation management of sea turtle populations. This study assessed predation on nests of the endangered loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) at Wreck Rock beach adjacent to Deepwater National Park in Southeast Queensland, Australia after a control program for feral foxes was instigated. The presence of predators on the nesting dune was evaluated by tracking plots (2 × 1 m) every 100 m along the dune front. There were 21 (2014–2015) and 41 (2015–2016) plots established along the dune, and these were monitored for predator tracks daily over three consecutive months in both nesting seasons. Predator activities at nests were also recorded by the presence of tracks on top of nests until hatchlings emerged. In addition, camera traps were set to record the predator activity around selected nests. The tracks of the fox (Vulpes vulpes) and goanna (Varanus spp) were found on tracking plots. Tracking plots, nest tracks and camera traps indicated goanna abundance varied strongly between years. Goannas were widely distributed along the beach and had a Passive Activity Index (PAI) (0.31 in 2014–2015 and 0.16 in 2015–2016) approximately seven times higher than that of foxes (PAI 0.04 in 2014–2015 and 0.02 in 2015–2016). Five hundred and twenty goanna nest visitation events were recorded by tracks but no fox tracks were found at turtle nests.
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Gut Lengths of Coral Reef Butterflyfishes (Pisces
    Relative gut lengths of coral reef butterflyfishes (Pisces: Chaetodontidae) ML Berumen1, 2 *, MS Pratchett3, BA Goodman4 1. Red Sea Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2. Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA 3. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia 4. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309 * Corresponding author: Email: [email protected] Phone: +966 544700019 Keywords: Chaetodontidae; corallivory; Papua New Guinea; relative gut length Abstract Variation in gut length of closely related animals is known to generally be a good predictor of dietary habits. We examined gut length in 28 species of butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), which encompass a wide range of dietary types (planktivores, omnivores, corallivores). We found general dietary patterns to be a good predictor of relative gut length, although we found high variation among groups and covariance with body size. The longest gut lengths are found in species that exclusively feed on the living tissue of corals, while the shortest gut length is found in a planktivorous species. Although we tried to control for phylogeny, corallivory has arisen multiple times in this family, confounding our analyses. The butterflyfishes, a speciose family with a wide range of dietary habits, may nonetheless provide an ideal system for future work studying gut physiology associated with specialisation and foraging behaviours. Introduction Relative gut lengths of vertebrates have long been studied and compared within and among species (e.g., Al-Hussaini 1949). The most common explanations for relatively longer guts in herbivores focus on the chemical defences of plants (e.g., Levin 1976; Hay and Fenical 1988), the indigestibility of plant fibre (e.g., Stevens 1989; Karasov and Martinez del Rio 2007), or the poor nutritional quality of plants as food.
    [Show full text]