1 / 27

Marsh terracing as a restoration technique for creating nekton habitat

To restore and increase vegetated marsh and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in terms of both quantity and qualityTo increase fishery habitat in terms of area and quality. . COASTAL RESTORATION. Field of dreams hypothesis:

makala
Download Presentation

Marsh terracing as a restoration technique for creating nekton habitat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Marsh terracing as a restoration technique for creating nekton habitat USGS Louisiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit School of Renewable Natural Resources Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Baton Rouge, LA

    2. To restore and increase vegetated marsh and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in terms of both quantity and quality To increase fishery habitat in terms of area and quality

    4. Area of vegetated marsh created Establishment of marsh vegetation Functional equivalency Habitat quality (density, standing stock) Habitat suitability (species occurrence) Food chain support (diet) Fitness (condition or growth)

    5. Determine the effect of marsh terraces on adjacent water quality and sediment characteristics. Compare nekton communities in paired terraced and unterraced ponds: Density (habitat quality) Community assemblages (habitat suitability) Condition (fitness)

    6. Rozas and Minello 2001 Maximize marsh edge Bush Thom et al. 2004 Differences in community composition

    7. Three sets of paired terraced and unterraced ponds (Rockefeller SWR (Sites 1 &2); Sabine NWR (Site 3)). Sampling at three habitat types: 1) terraced marsh edge 2) unterraced marsh edge 3) open water Sampled 7 times bi-monthly April 2004 – April 2005 7 sample dates x 3 sites x 2 ponds x 4 sites = 168 samples

    10. Nekton Samples were collected with a 1-m2 throw trap. A bar seine is used to clear all nekton from the trap.

    11. Water Quality & Soils Depth and water quality data (salinity, conductivity, temp., D.O., turbidity) were collected along with each nekton sample. Percent organic matter SAV All submerged aquatic vegetation was collected from the throw trap.

    12. Habitat quality Compare water quality, nekton density, biomass, richness and diversity between terraced and unterraced edge and open water sites (ANOVA) Habitat Suitability Compare species composition (Chi-square) Nekton Condition Compare dominant species length-weight relationships (ANCOVA)

    13. Turbidity (P = 0.23) lower in terraced ponds SAV (P < 0.0001) higher biomass in terraced ponds *Soil Organic Matter (P = 0.003) lower at terraced edge

    18. Habitat characteristics differed between terraced and unterraced ponds (SAV, organic matter, turbidity). Habitat quality, as measured by nekton density and diversity, were similar between terraced and unterraced edges.

    21. Habitat characteristics differed between terraced and unterraced ponds (SAV, organic matter, turbidity). Habitat quality, as measured by nekton density and diversity were similar between terraced and unterraced edges. Habitat suitability, as measured by species abundances and community composition, differed significantly between terraced and unterraced habitats with greater proportion of benthic dependent species at unterraced edge, and greater proportions of pelagic species in terraced habitats.

    24. Condition (length-weight) Inland silverside Sheepshead minnow Clown goby

    25. Habitat characteristics differed between terraced and unterraced ponds (SAV, organic matter, turbidity). Habitat quality, as measured by nekton density was similar between terraced and unterraced edges. Habitat suitability, as measured by species abundances and community composition, differed significantly between terraced and unterraced habitats. Nekton fitness or health, as measured by length – weight relationships, was lower in terraced as compared to unterraced ponds for 3 species, and similar between terraced and unterraced ponds for 3 different species.

    27. Terraces do provide nekton habitat, largely through the provision of edge habitat. However, ecological equivalency is clearly not achieved within 4 years of restoration (as measured in this project). Species occurrence or abundance only provide a part of the picture - measures of species health and community assemblages need to be considered to fully capture the “value” of restored marshes.

    28. Funding provided by CREST (Coastal Restoration and Enhancement through Science and Technology) Thanks to Rockefeller SWR and Sabine NWR for access to sites, and logistical help. Thanks to Chris Cannaday, Jessica O’Connell, Bryan Piazza, Tim Birdsong, and Seth Bordelon for assistance in the field.

More Related