NEERS MEETING ABSTRACTS - ALL
Bartholomew, K.A., J.M. Kasinak, M.A. Beekey, and J.H. Mattei*
Department of Biology, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT 06825
MOVEMENT PATTERNS AND POPULATION GENETICS OF THE AMERICAN HORSESHOE CRAB IN RELATION TO LONG ISLAND SOUND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection established three no-harvest zones for the horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) population as part of a conservation plan for the species. Data from a long-term mark/recapture study of horseshoe crabs in conjunction with a microsatellite-based genetic survey of the population were analyzed to determine if this plan was appropriate to conserve genetic diversity and broaden our knowledge of movement patterns of Limulus in Long Island Sound (LIS). To date, ~53,000 crabs have been tagged over a 10 year period through the Project Limulus program with an annual average recapture rate of 12 to 15%. In addition to the ongoing tagging study, 186 horseshoe crabs collected from 5 distinct sites spanning the geographic extent of Long Island Sound (Rye and Mt. Sinai, NY; Milford, New Haven, and Groton, CT) were genotyped for 12 microsatellite loci to determine the overall genetic health of the LIS population and determine if regional genetic differentiation was sufficient to identify sub-populations within this region. The genetic data indicates that the LIS Limulus population is genetically homogenous with no signs of inbreeding and substantially similar to other Mid-Atlantic populations. Data from the mark-recapture study indicate significant migration east and west along the north shore of LIS relative to the original tag site and in addition cross LIS migrations have also been observed. Therefore, the locations of the established no-harvest zones are appropriate to conserve genetic diversity. However, based on their tri-state migration patterns a multi-state management strategy is needed for the LIS horseshoe crab population.
Brennessel,1 Barbara A., Shawn McCafferty,1 Julia Simindza,1Amanda Shorette,1 and Tracey Spoon.2 1 Wheaton College, Norton, MA,2 Mystic Aquarium, Mystic, CT.
DIAMONDBACK TERRAPINS OF CAPE COD:POPULATION STRUCTURE AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
The diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin is classified as a “threatened” species in Massachusetts. It is the only brackish water turtle in North America and can be found in several bays and estuaries on Cape Cod, most notably, Wellfleet Harbor, Eastham, near first Encounter Beach, Barnstable, at Sandy Neck, and on the SouthCoast in Buzzards Bay. A remnant population resides in Pleasant Bay, Orleans. Mark/recapture studies indicate that female terrapins remain in their population clusters but movement of males between clusters cannot be ruled out. Genetic analysis, using microsatellite markers, points toward population structuring among the Cape Cod clusters although not to a degree in which individual terrapins can be assigned to a particular cluster. Tracking studies point to the importance of salt marshes as nurseries for yearling and juvenile terrapins. The main threat to terrapins on Cape Cod is loss of habitat, particularly nesting habitat. In collaboration with Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, our nest protection efforts and turtle gardening programs are producing significant increases in the number of diamondback terrapin nests and the number of hatchlings emerging each year. With the ability to identify nesting females and retrieve their hatchlings, we have conducted a paternity study using terrapins from Wellfleet Harbor. Similar to other species of turtles, diamondback terrapins exhibit multiple paternity. In approximately 30-50% of Wellfleet nests that we examined, the hatchlings have been sired by more than one male.
Carrie, Byron 1, David Bengtson 1, Barry Costa-Pierce 1,2, Jason Link 3, Robert Rheault 4, David Beutel 5, David Alves 6. 1Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Sciences,University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, carriebyron@mail.uri.edu; 2Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI; 3National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA; 441121 Moorsefield Rd, Wakefield, RI 02879;5Coastal Resources Management Council, Stedman Government Center, Wakefield, RI; 5NOAA Aquaculture Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, MA.
WORKING TOWARD CONSENSUS: APPLICATION OF SHELLFISH CARRYING CAPACITY IN MANAGEMENT OF RHODE ISLAND AQUACULTURE
We present a framework for determining carrying capacity through mass-balance ecosystem modeling and stakeholder involvement that can be used to guide management of bivalve aquaculture. Two Ecopath models were constructed for Narragansett Bay (NB) and temperate lagoons (TL)in RI where aquaculture has doubled in six years and user conflict is high. Stakeholders informed the modeling process at four critical steps; conceptualization of models, evaluation of data sources for parameterization, mass-balancing of the model, and calculation of carrying capacity. Cultured oysters were not a significant part of NB or TL, despite rapid increase in the industry. Cultured oyster biomass in NB is currently at 0.5t/km/y and could be increased 625 times without exceeding the ecological carrying capacity of 297t/km/y. Production carrying capacity was calculated to be 3,481t/km/y which could exist over only 9% of NB surface area without exceeding the ecological carrying capacity. Cultured oyster biomass in TL is currently at 12t/km/y and could increase 62 times this value without exceeding the ecological carrying capacity of 722y/km/y. Production carrying capacity was calculated to be 1,561t/km/y. TL could support this high level of biomass production across 46% of surface area before exceeding the ecological carrying capacity. Harvest was 40% of biomass. Both NB and TL were more productive and had higher carrying capacity than oligotrophic and heavily cultured New Zealand bays. Involving the stakeholders in the modeling process increased understanding and acceptance of the science thereby making the results more likely to be incorporated into future management and policy formulation.
Costa, A.S. Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies. Provincetown, MA.
TESTING THE WATERS: HOW HEALTHY IS CAPE COD BAY?
In the spring of 2006, the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS) began a long-term monitoring program to study the health of Cape Cod Bay, focusing on water quality and related indicators of ecosystem health. The foundation for this program was work done by PCCS from 2000-2004 to address the impacts of the Boston Outfall on Cape Cod Bay. Although no direct effects were found from the Boston Outfall from this early work, it was recommended that PCCS continue to research the potential long-term impacts of “upstream polluters” on the marine environment. This and the additional goal to understand the impact from “local polluters” gave rise to the Cape Cod Bay Monitoring Program in 2006. Although water quality was the original focus of this program, the realization of the interdependence of many other facets of the Cape Cod Bay ecosystem has expanded the scope of study. We are now regularly monitoring eelgrass habitat, marine invasive species, and in 2010 are beginning to look at the occurrence of organic wastewater contaminants (pharmaceuticals, personal care products) in the Cape Cod Bay ecosystem.
Faherty, M.
Experimental Oyster Reef Restoration in Wellfleet: Lessons from Year One
placeholder
Frankic, A. and E.C. Rempala*.
University of Massachusetts Boston, Environmental, Earth, and Ocean Sciences Department, Boston, MA.
SALT MARSH AND EELGRASS RESTORATION AT UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON: A BIOMIMICRY APPROACH
Salt marsh and eelgrass habitats provide important ecological services, many of which are overlooked in urban settings. We propose to restore these habitats on an approximately two-acre site at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Goals of the project include: minimizing erosion; mitigating degraded coastal ecosystems in Boston Harbor; developing a protocol for biomimicry-based habitat restoration; repopulating native shellfish; and restoring connectivity between salt marsh and eelgrass habitats. The project will have positive environmental impacts by reopening the hydraulic connection between the salt marsh/pond/channel and ocean, thus providing diurnal flushing, as well as by establishing natural buffers with mudflats, eelgrass, and salt marsh vegetation. Additionally, restoring eelgrass beds will stabilize sediment and increase biodiversity.
Presently this area—between an old wastewater pump house and Old Harbor—experiences severe erosion and subsidence. We propose that this particular section of the Boston HarborWalk be supported by a raised wooden walkway, weaving through the restored salt marsh. This site would become the first “living lab” on campus, allowing students, community members, and researchers to have hands-on experiences in these ecosystems; this would include conducting short-term research and long-term monitoring on the re-establishment of salt marsh and eelgrass habitats, their associated communities, and related environmental parameters. This project’s vision of biomimicry-based habitat restoration is one example of learning how to solve our current environmental issues by ensuring that human activities function more like the natural world.
Rempala*, E.C. and A. Frankic. Department of Environmental, Earth, and Ocean Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF SALT MARSH–EELGRASS CONNECTIVITY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR HABITAT RESTORATION
Salt marsh and eelgrass habitats provide important ecological services, many of which are overlooked in urban settings leading to degradation and destruction of these habitats. We wish to discover whether spatial relationships between eelgrass beds and salt marshes affect water purification, biodiversity and health of each habitat.
We will attempt to quantify water purification within each habitat and discern whether water purification is more efficient when eelgrass beds and salt marshes work in concert with one another. Additionally, if a spatial relationship exists, what type of spatial relationship would benefit biodiversity and overall health of each habitat?
In an attempt to select model study sites, eelgrass beds in proximity to salt marshes are currently being surveyed in Nantucket, Boston Harbor, and Cape Cod.
We hope that the findings from this research will not only further the understanding of the relationship between salt marshes and eelgrass beds, but also assist with future restoration projects, particularly those related to the Green Boston Harbor Project. Should spatial relationships be considered in salt marsh and eelgrass restoration projects? Would restoration be more successful if eelgrass beds are placed in the vicinity of salt marshes, and if so, what is the optimal spatial relationship for restoration of these two habitats?