Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:41:56.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of inundation duration on southeastern Louisiana oyster reefs

Subject: Earth and Environmental Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2020

Danielle A. Marshall
Affiliation:
School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA70803.
Megan K. La Peyre*
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Louisiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA70803.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Understanding the effects of predicted rising sea levels, combined with changes in precipitation and freshwater inflow on key estuarine ecosystem engineers such as the eastern oyster would provide critical information to inform restoration design and predictive models. Using oyster ladders with shell bags placed at three heights to capture a range of inundation levels, oyster growth of naturally recruited spat was monitored over the course of 6 months. Oyster numbers and shell heights were consistently highest in bottom and mid bags experiencing greater than 50% inundation (mid: 63 ± 7%; bottom: 95 ± 3%). Identifying thresholds for optimal oyster growth and survival to enhance restoration engineering would require finer scale evaluation of inundation levels.

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Oyster reef restoration is increasingly used as a tool to ameliorate the negative effects of overharvesting and habitat degradation (Blomberg et al., Reference Blomberg, Beseres Pollack, Montagna and Yoskowitz2018). In Louisiana, eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reefs provide extensive habitat (La Peyre et al., Reference La Peyre, Aguilar Marshall, Miller and Humphries2019), and support a valuable industry (NOAA, 2020). These oyster populations thrive in Louisiana’s estuaries, and exist both inter- and sub-tidally, but restoration projects struggle to identify inundation thresholds for designed reefs. With changing sea levels and variation in reef elevations, understanding how inundation time might affect oyster growth, survival and reef sustainability is critical (Ridge et al., Reference Ridge, Rodriguez, Fodrie, Lindquist, Brodeir, Coleman, Grabowski and Theuerkauf2015; Solomon et al., Reference Solomon, Donnelly and Walters2014). The threshold between a successful or failed restoration may be a matter of centimeters (Fodrie et al., Reference Fodrie, Rodriguez, Baillie, Brodeur, Coleman, Gittman, Keller, Kenworthy, Poray, Ridge, Theuerkauf and Lindquist2014) with increased inundation time often resulting in biological stressors (i.e., increased predation and biofouling), and reduced inundation time resulting in increased abiotic stressors (i.e., desiccation; Bishop & Peterson, Reference Bishop and Peterson2006).

Objective

The objective of this study is to use oyster ladders (e.g., Solomon et al., Reference Solomon, Donnelly and Walters2014) to monitor the effects of inundation duration on oyster growth, with bags of oyster substrate (i.e., shell) placed at different heights to capture varying inundation levels.

Methods

Oyster ladders were constructed of ~50 mm-wide, ~3 m-tall PVC driven into the soils at least 1 m, with cables at three levels off the water bottom to target different inundations (top, mid, bottom, 40 cm difference in levels; Figure 1). On April 9th, 2018, ladders were deployed at three sites in the Breton Sound Estuary, Louisiana, with three replicate oyster Australian longline bags (BST Oysters Supplies) per height (3 sites X 3 heights X 3 bags = 27 bags). Approximately 20 cleaned, dried oyster shells were placed in each bag as substrate for recruitment. Distance from the sediment to the bottom of each oyster bag was measured, and the time and water level recorded. On June 4th, July 11th, August 26th, and October 30th, shell height (mm) of live oysters was recorded (up to 20 oysters per bag). Salinity was measured in-situ with a YSI Pro2030.

Figure 1. Map of study sites in southeastern Louisiana (circle = Lake Athanasio, square = Lake Eloi, triangle = CPRA), with diagram of oyster ladder set up depicting top, mid, and bottom levels (40 cm difference between levels) of oyster bags filled with 20 clean oyster shells.

Water level data were obtained from USGS recorder 0737452. Inundation (%) was calculated using NOAA’s Tidal Analysis Datum Calculator (https://access.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/datumcalc/) for each site and height combination.

Results

Prior to ladder deployment, salinity was below 10 from mid-March through June (109 days, USGS recorder 0737452), and < 5 for the majority of that time (93 days). During the study period, inundation (%) ranged from 30–100% for Lake Athanasio and 0–98% for the Lake Eloi and CPRA sites (Figure 2, Supplementary Table S1). By the final sampling (October), total inundation (%, mean ± SE) across all sites was 22 ± 17% at the top-level, 63 ± 7% at the mid-level, and 95 ± 3% at the bottom-level. Oysters recruited in the bags continuously through the study, with increased spat observed in the August and October samplings (Figure 3, Supplementary Table S1). Mean oyster shell height (mm) increased with inundation time (ANOVA with block on site, p < 0.001; Figure 3).

Figure 2. Percent of time oyster bags located at the bottom, mid, and top of each oyster ladder are inundated between sampling dates.

Figure 3. Boxplots of shell height (mm) for each site by bag location (bottom, mid, top) and sampling date. The numbers above each box represent the total number of oysters measured. The boundaries of the box represent the 25 and 75% quantiles, while the line within the box is the median. Error bars above and below the box indicate 1.5*IQR above and below the box boundaries, respectively. Salinity is represented by the gray dashed line and points.

Discussion

Despite low salinities in the spring of 2018 resulting in very low spring and early summer recruitment, oyster ladders proved successful in capturing oyster growth at varying inundation levels. Similar to previous studies (e.g., Baillie & Grabowski, Reference Baillie and Grabowski2019; Ridge et al., Reference Ridge, Rodriguez, Fodrie, Lindquist, Brodeir, Coleman, Grabowski and Theuerkauf2015, Solomon et al., Reference Solomon, Donnelly and Walters2014), oyster numbers and shell heights were consistently highest in the mid and bottom bags, which by the end of the study experienced 50–70%, and 92–100% inundation across the sites, respectively. Longer, finer-scale (inundation levels, frequency of sampling) studies may show a threshold where oyster recruitment, growth, and mortality may be negatively impacted by predation or biofouling (Johnson & Smee, Reference Johnson and Smee2014).

Conclusion

Identifying thresholds or ranges of exposure conducive to oyster growth on-reef will aid in designing and implementing intertidal oyster restoration, and living shorelines (e.g., Fuentes et al., Reference Fuentes, Whitcraft and Zacherl2019). Further studies examining variation and timing of exposure (i.e., absence of inundation), including seasonal patterns of exposure, may be equally important in explaining recruitment, growth, and mortality. These data enable scientists and restoration ecologists to improve ecological models that predict oyster performance under anticipated rising sea levels.

Acknowledgements

We thank Sam Moore, Eva Hillmann, Caleb Taylor, Rebecca Morris, Melanie Holton, and Scott Riley for field help. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author Contributions

DAM and MKL designed the study. DAM conducted data collection and statistical analyses. DAM and MKL wrote the article.

Funding Information

This research was supported by funding from Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries through support to the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, and from the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

Data Availability Statement

Data used in this study are available in supplementary materials (Supplementary Table S1).

Conflict of Interest

DAM and MKL declare none.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/exp.2020.35.

References

Baillie, C. J., & Grabowski, J. H. (2019). Factors affecting recruitment, growth and survival of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica across an intertidal elevation gradient in southern New England. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 609, 119132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. J., & Peterson, C. H. (2006). Direct effects of physical stress can be counteracted by indirect benefits: Oyster growth on a tidal elevation gradient. Oecologia, 147, 426433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blomberg, B. N., Beseres Pollack, P., Montagna, P. A., & Yoskowitz, D. W. (2018). Evaluating the U.S. Estuary Restoration Act to inform restoration policy implementation: A case study focusing on oyster reef projects. Marine Policy, 91, 161166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodrie, J. F., Rodriguez, A. B., Baillie, C. J., Brodeur, M. C., Coleman, S. E., Gittman, R. K., Keller, D. A., Kenworthy, M. D., Poray, A. K., Ridge, J. T., Theuerkauf, E. J., & Lindquist, N. L. (2014). Classic paradigms in a novel environment: Inserting food web and productivity lessons from rocky shores and saltmarshes into biogenic reef restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 13141325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuentes, C. M., Whitcraft, C. R., & Zacherl, D. C. (2019). Adaptive restoration reveals potential effect of tidal elevation on oyster restoration outcomes. Wetlands, 40, 9399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-019-01166-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. D., & Smee, D. L. (2014). Predators influence the tidal distribution of oysters. Marine Biology, 161, 15571564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Peyre, M. K., Aguilar Marshall, D., Miller, L. S., & Humphries, A. T. (2019). Oyster reefs in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries harbor diverse fish and decapod crustacean assemblages: A meta-synthesis. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2020). Commercial fisheries statistics, annual landings. https://foss.nmfs.noaa.gov.Google Scholar
Ridge, J. T., Rodriguez, A. B., Fodrie, J. F., Lindquist, N. L., Brodeir, M. C., Coleman, S. E., Grabowski, J. H., & Theuerkauf, E. J. (2015). Maximizing oyster-reef growth supports green infrastructure with accelerating sea-level rise. Scientific Reports, 5, 14785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, J. A., Donnelly, M. J., & Walters, L. J. (2014). Effects of sea level rise on the intertidal oyster Crassostrea virginica by field experiments. Journal of Coastal Research, 68, 5764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map of study sites in southeastern Louisiana (circle = Lake Athanasio, square = Lake Eloi, triangle = CPRA), with diagram of oyster ladder set up depicting top, mid, and bottom levels (40 cm difference between levels) of oyster bags filled with 20 clean oyster shells.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Percent of time oyster bags located at the bottom, mid, and top of each oyster ladder are inundated between sampling dates.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Boxplots of shell height (mm) for each site by bag location (bottom, mid, top) and sampling date. The numbers above each box represent the total number of oysters measured. The boundaries of the box represent the 25 and 75% quantiles, while the line within the box is the median. Error bars above and below the box indicate 1.5*IQR above and below the box boundaries, respectively. Salinity is represented by the gray dashed line and points.

Supplementary material: File

Marshall and La Peyre supplementary material

Table S1

Download Marshall and La Peyre supplementary material(File)
File 25.8 KB
Reviewing editor:  Keith Walters Coastal Carolina University, Department of Marine Science, P.O. Box 261954, Conway, South Carolina, United States, 29528-6054, 843-349-2545
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Effects of inundation duration on southeastern Louisiana oyster reefs

Conflict of interest statement

I participate in a large oyster research group (~25 scientists) which includes Dr. LaPeyre. I do not know her personally and this consider myself to have no conflict of interest.

Comments

Comments to the Author: Many intertidal oyster restoration efforts depend on natural recruitment. At a local scale, this requires knowledge of the inundation levels, and, as the authors state, even a few centimeters of height can be the difference between a successful and a failed restoration project. The authors of this project examined natural oyster recruitment on oyster shell deployed at three inundation heights in three locations in Louisiana. They found recruitment was greatest at their highest tested inundation level (89+% inundation). Future additions to this project could include testing additional inundation levels to further improve chances for success with restoration, and tracking mortality over time as seasonal fluctuations in water levels may be a confounding variable for long-term success.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Effects of inundation duration on southeastern Louisiana oyster reefs

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper looks at recruitment and growth of oysters at three inundation levels using oyster ladders. Number of oysters and growth rate were greatest under conditions of longer inundation periods. This will be a valuable addition to the literature. The reviewer has just a small number of comments: (1) What were the controls? (2) What were the limitations of the study? (3) Please provide a description or reference for NOAA’s Inundation Analysis Tool. (4) Considering choosing either imperial or metric units but not both in the same piece of work.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5