Characterizing macroinvertebrate community composition and abundance in freshwater tidal wetlands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta


Autoři: Rosemary Hartman aff001;  Stacy Sherman aff001;  Dave Contreras aff001;  Alison Furler aff002;  Ryan Kok aff003
Působiště autorů: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Stockton, California, United States of America aff001;  California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America aff002;  California Department of Fish and Wildlife, LaGrange, California, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215421

Souhrn

Restored tidal wetlands may provide important food web support for at-risk fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) of California, including Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Since many tidal wetland restoration projects are planned or have recently been constructed in the Delta, understanding the diversity and variability of wetland invertebrates that are fish prey items is of increasing importance. During this study, two different invertebrate sampling techniques were tested (leaf packs and sweep nets) in four habitat types within three different wetland areas to evaluate which sampling technique provided the most reliable metric of invertebrate abundance and community composition. Sweep nets provided a better measure of fish food availability than leaf packs and were better able to differentiate between habitat types. Generalized linear models showed submerged and floating vegetation had higher abundance and taxa richness than channel habitats or emergent vegetation. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance showed significantly different communities of invertebrates in different habitat types and in different wetlands, and point-biserial correlation coefficients found a greater number of mobile taxa associated with sweep nets. There were more taxa associated with vegetated habitats than channel habitats, and one area had more taxa associated with it than the other two areas. These results suggest that restoration sites that contain multiple habitat types may enhance fish invertebrate prey diversity and resilience. However, the effect of habitat diversity must be monitored as restoration sites develop to assess actual benefits to at-risk fish species.

Klíčová slova:

Diet – Habitats – Invertebrates – Islands – Surface water – Wetlands – Diptera – Zooplankton


Zdroje

1. Boucek RE, Rehage JS. No free lunch: displaced marsh consumers regulate a prey subsidy to an estuarine consumer. Oikos. 2013;122(10):1453–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.20994.x

2. Howe ER, Simenstad CA, Toft JD, Cordell JR, Bollens SM. Macroinvertebrate prey availability and fish diet selectivity in relation to environmental variables in natural and restoring North San Francisco Bay tidal marsh channels. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2014;12(1). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2014v12iss1art5

3. Maier GO, Simenstad CA. The role of marsh-derived macrodetritus to the food webs of juvenile Chinook salmon in a large altered estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. 2009;32(5):984–98. doi: 10.1007/s12237-009-9197-1

4. Odum EP. Tidal Marshes as Outwelling/Pulsing Systems. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA, editors. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2000. p. 3–7.

5. Weinstein MP, Litvin SY. Macro-restoration of tidal wetlands: a whole estuary approach. Ecological Restoration. 2016;34(1):27–38. doi: 10.3368/er.34.1.27

6. Robinson A, Safran S, Beagle J, Grossinger R, Grenier L. A Delta Transformed: Ecological Functions, Spatial Metrics, and Landscape Change in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Richmond, CA: San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center, 2014 729.

7. Cloern JE, Robinson A, Richey A, Grenier L, Grossinger R, Boyer KE, et al. Primary production in the Delta: then and now. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2016;14(3). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss3art1

8. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (4 ed.). U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2013.

9. Hickson D, Keeler-Wolf T. Vegetation and land use classification and map of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Bay-Delta Region. 2007.

10. California Natural Resources Agency. Delta Smelt Resiliency Strategy. Sacramento, CA: California Natural Resources Agency, 2016.

11. CDFW. California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-001-03 on Department of Water Resources California State Water Project Delta Facilities and Operations. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game (Now Fish and Wildlife); 2009.

12. National Marine Fisheries Service. Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. Long Beach, CA: National Marine Fisheries Service; 2009.

13. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). Sacramento, California: United States Fish and Wildlife Service; 2008.

14. Lopez CB, Cloern JE, Schraga TS, Little AJ, Lucas LV, Thompson JK, et al. Ecological values of shallow-water habitats: Implications for the restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecosystems. 2006;9(3):422–40. doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0113-7

15. Moyle PB, Lund JR, Bennett WA, Fleenor WE. Habitat variability and complexity in the Upper San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2010;8(3). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss3art1

16. Brown LR, Kimmerer W, Conrad JL, Lesmeister S, Mueller–Solger A. Food webs of the Delta, Suisun Bay, and Suisun Marsh: an update on current understanding and possibilities for management. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2016;14(3). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss3art4

17. Campeau S, Murkin HR, Titman RD. Relative importance of algae and emergent plant litter to freshwater marsh invertebrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1994;51(3):681–92.

18. Castellanos DL, Rozas LP. Nekton use of submerged aquatic vegetation, marsh, and shallow unvegetated bottom in the Atchafalaya River Delta, a Louisiana tidal freshwater ecosystem. Estuaries. 2001;24(2):184–97. doi: 10.1007/BF02693998

19. Ellings CS, Davis MJ, Grossman EE, Woo I, Hodgson S, Turner KL, et al. Changes in habitat availability for outmigrating juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) following estuary restoration. Restoration Ecology. 2016. doi: 10.1111/rec.12333

20. Gewant D, Bollens SM. Fish assemblages of interior tidal marsh channels in relation to environmental variables in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2012;94(2):483–99. doi: 10.1007/s10641-011-9963-3

21. Rozas LP, Minello TJ. Nekton use of salt marsh, seagrass, and nonvegetated habitats in a south Texas (USA) estuary. Bulletin of Marine Science. 1998;63(3):481–501.

22. Ferrari MCO, Ranaker L, Weinersmith KL, Young MJ, Sih A, Conrad JL. Effects of turbidity and an invasive waterweed on predation by introduced largemouth bass. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2014;97:79–90. doi: 10.1007/s10641-013-0125-7

23. Conrad JL, Bibian AJ, Weinersmith KL, De Carion D, Young MJ, Crain P, et al. Novel species ineractions in a highly modified estuary: Association of Largemouth Bass with Brazilian waterweed Egeria densa. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 2016;145:249–63. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2015.1114521

24. Hestir EL, Schoellhamer DH, Greenberg J, Morgan-King T, Ustin SL. The effect of submerged aquatic vegetation expansion on a declining turbidity trend in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Estuaries and Coasts. 2015;39(4):1100–12. doi: 10.1007/s12237-015-0055-z

25. Villamagna AM, Murphy BR. Ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): a review. Freshwater Biology. 2010;55(2):282–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02294.x

26. Boyer K, Borgnis E, Miller J, Moderan J, Patten M. Habitat Values of Native SAV (Stukenia spp.) in the Low Salinity Zone of San Francisco Estuary, Final Project Report. Sacramento, CA: Delta Stewardship Council, 2013.

27. Toft JD, Simenstad CA, Cordell JR, Grimaldo LF. The effects of introduced water hyacinth on habitat structure, invertebrate assemblages, and fish diets. Estuaries. 2003;26(3):746–58.

28. Young MJ, Conrad JL, Bibian AJ, Sih A. The Effect of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation on Invertebrates Important in Diets of Juvenile Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2018;16(2). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2018v16iss2art5

29. Ta J, Lars W.J.Christman, Mairgareth A.Khanna, ShrutiKratville DavidMadsen, John D.Moran, Patrick J.Viers, Joshua A. Invasive Aquatic Vegetation Management in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta: Status and Recommendations. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2017;15(4). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2017v15iss4art5

30. Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Verdonschot PFM. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia. 2004;516(1):1–20. doi: 10.1023/B:HYDR.0000025255.70009.a5

31. Blocksom KA, Flotemersch JE. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods for nonwadeable streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2005;102(1–3):243–62. 15869189

32. Meyer CK, Peterson SD, Whiles MR. Quantitative Assessment of Yield, Precision, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Wetland Invertebrate Sampling Techniques. Wetlands. 2011;31(1):101–12. doi: 10.1007/s13157-010-0122-y

33. Contreras D, Hartman R, Sherman S, Furler A, Low A. Pilot study phase I: Results from 2015 gear methodology trials in the North Delta. Stockton, CA: California Department of FIsh and Wildlife, Fish Restoration Program, 2016.

34. Klemm DJ, Lewis PA, Fulk F, Lazorchak JM. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the BIologic Integrety of Surface Waters. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnatti, OH 1990.

35. Weisberg S, Ranasinghe JA, Dauer D, Schaffner L, Diaz R, Frithsen J. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries. 1997;20(1):149–58. doi: 10.2307/1352728

36. Llansó R, Scott L, Dauer D, Hyland J, Russell D. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. I. Classification of assemblages and habitat definition. Estuaries. 2002;25(6):1219–30. doi: 10.1007/bf02692219

37. Turner AM, Trexler JC. Sampling aquatic invertebrates from marshes: evaluating the options. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 1997;16(3):694–709.

38. Marklund O. A new sampler for collecting invertebrates in submerged vegetation. Hydrobiologia. 2000;432(1–3):229–31.

39. Scatolini SR, Zedler JB. Epibenthic invertebrates of natural and constructed marshes of San Diego Bay. Wetlands. 1996;16(1):24–37.

40. Nelson SM, Thullen JS. Aquatic macroinvertebrates associated with Schoenoplectus litter in a constructed wetland in California (USA). Ecological Engineering. 2008;33(2):91–101.

41. Warren RS, Fell P, Grimsby J, Buck E, Rilling GC, Fertik R. Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries. 2001;24(1):90–107. doi: 10.2307/1352816

42. Baxter R, Brown LR, Castillo G, Conrad L, Culberson S, Dekar M, et al. An updated conceptual model for Delta Smelt: our evolving understanding of an estuarine fish. Sacramento, CA: Interagency Ecological Program, 2015.

43. McLain J, Castillo G. Nearshore areas used by fry Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the northwestern Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2009;7(2). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2009v7iss2art1

44. Sommer T, Mejia F. A place to call home: a synthesis of Delta Smelt habitat in the upper San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2013;11(2):25 pages. doi: 10.15447/sfews.2013v11iss2art4

45. DSC. The Delta Plan: Ensuring a reliable water supply for California, a healthy Delta ecosystem, and a place of enduring value. Sacramento, CA: Delta Stewardship Council; 2013.

46. CDWR, CDFW. Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy: Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish. Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service; 2012.

47. Marineau ED, Perryman MJ, Lawler S, Hartman R, Pratt PD. Management of invasive Water Hyacinth as Both a Nuisance Weed and Invertebrate Habitat. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2019;17(2):1–19. doi: 10.15447/sfews.2019v17iss5

48. Whitley SN, Bollens SM. Fish assemblages across a vegetation gradient in a restoring tidal freshwater wetland: diets and potential for resource competition. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2014;97(6):659–74. doi: 10.1007/s10641-013-0168-9

49. Slater SB, Baxter RD. Diet, prey selection and body condition of age-0 Delta Smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, in the upper San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2014;14(4). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2014v12iss3art1

50. Sommer TR, Nobriga ML, Harrell WC, Batham W, Kimmerer WJ. Floodplain rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: Evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2001;58(2):325–33.

51. Tiffan KF, Erhardt JM, St. John SJ. Prey Availability, Consumption, and Quality Contribute to Variation in Growth of Subyearling Chinook Salmon Rearing in Riverine and Reservoir Habitats. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 2014;143(1):219–29. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2013.839958

52. Harris RP, Wiebe PH, Lenz J, Skjoldal HR, Huntley M, editors. ICES Zooplankton Methodology Manual. London: Academic Press; 2000.

53. R Core Team. The R Project for Statistical Computing. The R Foundation; 2017.

54. Magnusson A, Skaug H, Nielsen A, Berg C, Kristensen K, Maechler M, et al. Package 'glmmTMB': Generalized Linear Mixed Models using Template Model Builder. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. 2019.

55. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN); 2016.

56. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, et al. Community Ecology Package "vegan". Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN); 2016.

57. Champely S, Ekstrom C, Dalgaard P, Gill J, Weibelzahl S, Ford C, et al. Basic Functions for Power Analysis pwr. R package. 1.2–1 ed: CRAN; 2017. p. Power calculations along the lines of Cohen (1988) using in particular the same notations for effect sizes. Examples from the book are given.

58. Cáceres MD, Jansen F. Package: indicspecies. Studying the statistical relationship between species and groups of sites. 1.7.6 ed: The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN); 2016.

59. Turner TF, Trexler JC, Miller GL, Toyer KE. Temporal and spatial dynamics of larval and juvenile fish abundance in a temperate floodplain river. Copeia. 1994;1:174–83.

60. Robinson AH, Cohen AN, Lindsey B, Grenier L. Distribution of Macroinvertebrates Across a Tidal Gradient, Marin County, California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 2011;9(3). doi: 10.15447/sfews.2011v9iss3art5

61. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 10870—Water quality—Guidelines for the selection of sampling methods and devices for benthic macroinvertebrates in fresh waters. 2012.

62. Simenstad CA, Cordell JR. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering. 2000;15(3–4):283–302. doi: 10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00082-3

63. Simenstad C, Kramer-Wilt E, Toft J, Ramirez M, Sosik E, Howe E, et al. BREACH III: Evaluating and Predicting ‘Restoration Thresholds’ in Evolving Freshwater-Tidal Marshes. Stockton, CA: US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013 Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU) Agreement 813329J005.

64. Bottom DL, Baptista A, Burke J, Campbell L, Casillas E, Hinton S, et al. Estuarine habitat and juvenile salmon: current and historical linkages in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary. Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011.

65. David AT, Goertler PAL, Munsch SH, Jones BR, Simenstad CA, Toft JD, et al. Influences of Natural and Anthropogenic Factors and Tidal Restoration on Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages in West Coast North American Estuarine Wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts. 2016;39(5):1491–504. doi: 10.1007/s12237-016-0091-3

66. Young M, Howe E, Berridge K, O’Rear T, Moyle P. Food Web Fuel Differs across Habitats of a Tidal Freshwater Estuary. Ch. 3 in Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Implications for Fish Distribution & Food Webs. Davis, CA.: University of California; 2016.

67. Heck KL Jr., Crowder LB. Habitat structure and predator—prey interactions in vegetated aquatic systems. In: Bell S, McCoy E, Mushinsky H, editors. Habitat Structure. Population and Community Biology Series. 8: Springer Netherlands; 1991. p. 281–99.

68. Robinson A, Safran S, Beagle J, Grenier J, Grossinger R, Spotswood E, et al. A Delta Renewed: A Guide to Science-Based Ecological Restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Richmond, CA: San Francisco Estuary Institute—Aquatic Science Center, 2016.

69. Sabal M, Hayes S, Merz J, Setka J. Habitat alterations and a nonnative predator, the Striped Bass, increase native Chinook Salmon mortality in the Central Valley, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2016;36(2):309–20. doi: 10.1080/02755947.2015.1121938

70. Simenstad C, Toft J, Higgins H, Cordell J, Orr M, Williams P, et al. Preliminary results from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta breached levee wetland study (BREACH). Interagency Ecological Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Newsletter. 1999;12(4):15–21.

71. Thompson B, Ranasinghe JA, Lowe S, Melwani A, Weisberg SB. Benthic macrofaunal assemblages of the San Francisco Estuary and Delta, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2013;185(3):2281–95. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2708-8 22684808

72. Lucas LV, Cloern JE, Thompson JK, Monsen NE. Functional variability of habitats within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: restoration implications. Ecological Applications. 2002;12(5):1528–47.

73. Downing BD, Bergamaschi BA, Kendall C, Kraus TEC, Dennis KJ, Carter JA, et al. Using Continuous Underway Isotope Measurements To Map Water Residence Time in Hydrodynamically Complex Tidal Environments. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;50(24):13387–96. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05745 27993035

74. Feyrer F, Slater SB, Portz DE, Odom D, Morgan-King T, Brown LR. Pelagic Nekton Abundance and Distribution in the Northern Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 2017;146(1):128–35. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2016.1243577

75. Sommer TR, Harrell WC, Solger AM, Tom B, Kimmerer W. Effects of flow variation on channel and floodplain biota and habitats of the Sacramento River, California, USA. Aquatic Conservation. 2004;14(3):247–61.

76. Lehman PW, Mayr S, Liu L, Tang A. Tidal day organic and inorganic material flux of ponds in the Liberty Island freshwater tidal wetland. Springer Plus. 2015;4:273. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1068-6 26090320

77. Feyrer F, Herbold B, Matern SA, Moyle PB. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish assemblage: Consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco Estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2003;67(3):277–88.

78. Kratina P, Mac Nally R, Kimmerer WJ, Thomson JR, Winder M. Human-induced biotic invasions and changes in plankton interaction networks. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2014;51(4):1066–74. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12266

79. Winder M, Jassby AD. Shifts in zooplankton community structure: implications for food web processes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. 2011;34(4):675–90. doi: 10.1007/s12237-010-9342-x

80. Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS. Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems. 1998;1(1):6–18.

81. Downing AL, Brown BL, Leibold MA. Multiple diversity–stability mechanisms enhance population and community stability in aquatic food webs. Ecology. 2014;95(1):173–84. doi: 10.1890/12-1406.1 24649657

82. McCann KS. The diversity-stability debate. Nature. 2000;405(6783):228. doi: 10.1038/35012234 10821283

83. Sommer T, Armor C, Baxter R, Breuer R, Brown L, Chotkowski M, et al. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries. 2007;32(6):270–7.

84. Cabeza M, Moilanen A. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2001;16(5):242–8. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02125-5

85. Merz JE, Bergman PS, Simonis JL, Delaney D, Pierson J, Anders P. Long-term seasonal trends in the prey community of Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Estuaries and Coasts. 2016;39(5):1526–36.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11