Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Washington Sea GrantGeoduck Aquaculture Research Program Update:
Effects of cultured geoduck harvest disturbances on infaunal benthic communities of intertidal flats in southern Puget Sound
Glenn R. VanBlaricomWashington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of Washington, Seattle
Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory CommitteeUpdate on Research, Permitting and Rulemaking
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 • 10:00 a.m. – 3:15 p.m.
WA Department of Ecology, Headquarters300 Desmond Drive SE, Lacey, WAAuditorium, Rm. 32 & 34
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Project objectives and foci:
Measurement of effects of five categories of disturbance, all associated with geoduck aquaculture activities, on the benthic infauna of intertidal sand habitats in the Puget Sound region:
1) Predator exclusion structure placement;2) Predator exclusion structure presence;3) Predator exclusion structure removal;4) Enhanced geoduck densities in cultured areas;5) Harvest of geoducks from cultured areas.
G VanBlaricom
(all)
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
General characteristics of the benthic infauna
1) Live on or in sediments;2) Mostly invertebrates, but may include vertebrates;3) Highly diverse;4) Dominant groups are usually crustaceans, polychaete worms, and small bivalves;5) Often abundant (commonly > 10,000 individuals per m2);6) Generally quite small (body lengths < 1 cm);7) Our project is focusing on “macroinfauna” (Animals retained on a 0.5 mm sieve).
J Cordell
J Zekely
C & L Raabe
J Cordell
C & L Raabe
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Study site locations for evaluation of harvest effects
Manke
Foss
Chelsea/Wang
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Study Site Layout
~2500 m2
50 m
≥100 m
Water
Upland
Sampling distribution, treatment plot
Treatment Control
Core samplesExcavations
Not to scale
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Results
• Secondary Model– Species composition ~ Harvest State: Treatment
Df SumsOfSqs MeanSqs F.Model R2 Pr(>F) STATE 2.00000 0.72731 0.36365 2.54090 0.2138 0.0005 ***TREAT 1.00000 0.49717 0.49717 3.47381 0.1461 0.0001 ***STATE:TREAT 2.00000 0.17428 0.08714 0.60886 0.0512 0.9386 Residuals 14.00000 2.00368 0.14312 0.5889 Total 19.00000 3.40244 1.0000 ---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
6/20/08 7/31/08 8/27/08 10/16/08 11/15/08 12/14/08 1/8/09 2/7/09 4/29/09 5/25/09
Den
sity
per
m2
Date
Average Abundance of All Organisms
Reference
Treatment
1 to 3
9 to 11
49 to 51
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Date:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Num
ber o
f Tax
a
Date
Total Taxa Richness by Month
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Polychaete Worms: Glyceridae
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Polychaete Worms: Goniadidae
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Polychaete Worms: Hesionidae - Ophidromus
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Polychaete Worms: Spionidae
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Polychaete Worms: Capitellidae
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Oligochaete Worms
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Amphipod Crustaceans: Corophium group(important prey for juvenile salmonids)
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Cumacean Crustaceans: Cumella vulgaris
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Sea Cucumber
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Sand Dollar
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Apr-09 May-09
Org
anis
ms p
er m
2
Date
Small Clams: Rochefortia
Reference
Treatment
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of thismaterial as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Conclusions to date:
• Time of year, plot category, and harvest timeline all explain significant portions of variance in infaunal communities proximate to geoduck aquaculture operations;
• Individual species can be found that display patterns relating to single explanatory variables (as listed immediately above), or to combinations of more than one variable;
• For some species, simple presence of adult geoducks at high density may have as much impact on density as disturbances associated with harvest of cultured geoducks;
• A spillover effect from harvested plots into adjacent unharvested grounds is apparent in the data. The spillover is detectable to at least 50 m from edges of plot margins, and persists for ~6 months;
• Our data do not provide any evidence to date of permanent damage or disruption to infaunal communities in the study area as a consequence of geoduck aquaculture activities;
• Additional analyses from samples collected at two other study areas will be helpful in evaluating the generality of our conclusions to date from the Foss study area.
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Our research team:• David Armstrong• Jeff Cordell• Brittany Cummings• Megan Dethier• Tim Essington• Aaron Galloway• Mariko Langness• Sean McDonald• Jenny Price• Paul Stevick• Jason Toft• Glenn VanBlaricom
NOTICE: This presentation reports preliminary information not yet subject to formal peer review, and subject to change based on further sampling and data analyses. Citation of this material as final should not be done under any circumstances.
Washington Sea Grant�Geoduck Aquaculture Research Program Update:��Effects of cultured geoduck harvest disturbances on infaunal benthic communities of intertidal flats in southern Puget Sound��Glenn R. VanBlaricom�Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit�School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences�University of Washington, SeattleProject objectives and foci:General characteristics of the benthic infaunaStudy site locations for evaluation of harvest effectsStudy Site LayoutSlide Number 6ResultsSlide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Conclusions to date:Our research team: