USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Population biology, ecology, and ecosystem contributions of the eastern oyster (crassostrea virginica) from natural an...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Population biology, ecology, and ecosystem contributions of the eastern oyster (crassostrea virginica) from natural and artificial habitats in tampa bay, florida
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Drexler, Michael
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Alternative Substrates
Crassostrea Virginica
Ecosystem Function
Epifaunal Community
Shoreline Management
Dissertations, Academic -- Environmental Sciences -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The objective of this project was to document the status of oysters, Crassostrea virginica, from non-reef habitats throughout Tampa Bay, Florida, and assess the ecosystem contributions of those populations relative to reef-dwelling oysters. The aspects of oyster ecology studied here include condition, prevalence and intensity of disease (Perkinsus marinus - dermo), reproductive activity (including stage, fecundity, and juvenile recruitment), adult oyster density, and the faunal community associated with the oysters. The predominant source of variation was seasonal, with lesser contributions among sites, and in most cases, little or no effect of the habitat type. Oysters populations from each habitat recruit juvenile oysters, produce mature individuals, and contribute viable gametes at the same magnitude with similar seasonality. The associated faunal communities were also largely similar between habitats at any given site. Measures of oyster density, combined with estimates of the total available habitat, suggest that natural oyster reefs may represent only a small portion of the total oyster community in Tampa Bay, while oysters associated with mangrove habitats and seawalls are probably the most abundant in the bay. Additional mapping and quantification of these habitats would help to define their bay-wide ecosystem-services value. Restoration projects, though small in size relative to other habitats, do provide alternative and additional habitat with comparable value to other oyster-bearing habitats.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michael Drexler.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 115 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004880
usfldc handle - e14.4880
System ID:
SFS0028140:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004880
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Drexler, Michael
0 245
Population biology, ecology, and ecosystem contributions of the eastern oyster (crassostrea virginica) from natural and artificial habitats in tampa bay, florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Michael Drexler.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2011.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 115 pages.
502
Thesis
(M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: The objective of this project was to document the status of oysters, Crassostrea virginica, from non-reef habitats throughout Tampa Bay, Florida, and assess the ecosystem contributions of those populations relative to reef-dwelling oysters. The aspects of oyster ecology studied here include condition, prevalence and intensity of disease (Perkinsus marinus dermo), reproductive activity (including stage, fecundity, and juvenile recruitment), adult oyster density, and the faunal community associated with the oysters. The predominant source of variation was seasonal, with lesser contributions among sites, and in most cases, little or no effect of the habitat type. Oysters populations from each habitat recruit juvenile oysters, produce mature individuals, and contribute viable gametes at the same magnitude with similar seasonality. The associated faunal communities were also largely similar between habitats at any given site. Measures of oyster density, combined with estimates of the total available habitat, suggest that natural oyster reefs may represent only a small portion of the total oyster community in Tampa Bay, while oysters associated with mangrove habitats and seawalls are probably the most abundant in the bay. Additional mapping and quantification of these habitats would help to define their bay-wide ecosystem-services value. Restoration projects, though small in size relative to other habitats, do provide alternative and additional habitat with comparable value to other oyster-bearing habitats.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor:
Hallock Muller Arnold, Pamela William S..
Advisor:
Hallock Muller Arnold, Pamela William S..
653
Alternative Substrates
Crassostrea Virginica
Ecosystem Function
Epifaunal Community
Shoreline Management
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Environmental Sciences
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4880



PAGE 1

Population Biology, Ecology, and Ecosystem Contributions of the Eastern Oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) from N atural and A rtificial H abitats in Tampa Bay, Florida by Michael Drexler A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science College of Marine Science University of South Florida Co Major Professor: Pamela Hallock Muller, Ph D. Co Major Professor: William S. Arnold Ph. D. Steve Geiger, Ph. D. Kendra Daly, Ph. D. Date of Approval: March 21, 2011 Keywords : Crassostrea virginica Ecosystem F unction, Alternative Substrate s, Epifaunal Community Shoreline Management Copyright 2011, Michael Drexler

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. William S. Arnold for the opportunities and guidance he has provided me. I would also like to thank Dr. Steve Geiger and Melanie Parker for lending me their expertise, and keeping me moving forward throu ghout this process I would like to thank them both for their efforts in helping to produce a final report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on which many of these analyses are based. Dr. Pamela Hallock Muller has provided me the best academic advising a student could ask for, and this process would have been far more difficult without her. I also thank Kendra Daly for her expertise in biological physical coupling L ab for their unyielding field and laboratory efforts. Dr. Steve Geiger, Melanie Parker, Sarah Stephenson, Janesssa Cobb, Mark Gambordella, Anthony Vasilas, and many others played a critical role in the collection and synthesis of this data, and this project wou ld not have been possible without them. This report was funded in part, through a grant agreement from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Coastal Management Program, by a grant provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource M anagement under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award no. NA08NOS4190415

PAGE 3

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES iv ABSTRACT vi INTRODUCTION 1 Monthly parameters 5 Single event parameters 9 Summar y 10 METHODS 1 2 Study sites 1 2 Monthly parameters 1 3 Single event parameters 19 RESULTS 24 Monthly parameters 24 Single event parameters 44 DISCUSSION 5 5 Monthly parameters 5 6 Single event parameters 6 2 CONCLUSION S 69 LITERATURE CITED 7 1 APPENDI CES 79 A ppendix A 8 0 A ppendix B 8 1 A ppendix C 8 4

PAGE 4

ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 : Mackin (1962) scale showing different stages of Perkinsus marinus (dermo) infection intensity 16 Table 2 : Reproductive staging criteria for oyster s collected from Florida waters 18 Table 3 : Total area sampled for community co mposition analysis at each site 23 Table 4 : Tests of f ixed e ffects on c ondition i ndex measured as the ratio of dry tissue weight to dry shell weight of individuals 27 Table 5 : Tests of f ixed e ffects on d ermo i nfection p revalence measured as the proportion of oysters w ith a detectable level of dermo 30 Table 6 : Tests of f ixed e ffects on d ermo i nfection i ntensity measured in accordance with the Mackin scale (Mackin, 1962) 31 Table 7 : Tests of f ixed e ffects on r eproductive s tage scored from histological cross sections in accordance with th e methods proposed by Wilson et al (2005) 35 Table 8 : Tests of f ixed e ffects f ecundity measured as the mean n umber of oocytes per individual 38 Table 9 : Tests of f ixed e ffects of r ecruitment measured as the mean number of spat per azoic oyster shell 42 Table 10 : Tests of f ixed e ffects of oyster d ensity measured as the number of oysters m 2 45 Table 11 : Tests of fixed effects of oyster shell height 45 Table 12 : Tests of fixed e 54

PAGE 5

iii Table 13 : Oyster biomass density of mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall habit ats sampled from Tampa Bay, USA 6 4 Table 1 4 : Estimated areas of suitable oyster substrate, mean oyster density, the calculated number of oysters, and percent contribution of oysters i n Tampa Bay by habitat type: mangrove, reef, and seawall 7 0 Table A1: Station coordinates for each sampling location in Tampa Bay 8 0 Table B1: Mean abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from m angrove, reef, restoration, an d seawall habitats in Tampa Bay 8 1 Table C1: Abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Upper Estua ry Dome study site in Tampa Bay 8 4 Table C2 : Abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Upper Estuar y Shell study site in Tampa Bay 88 Table C3: Abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Middle Estua ry Dome study site in Tampa Bay 9 2 Table C4 : Abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Middle Estuar y Shell study site in Tampa Bay 9 6 Table C5: Abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Lower Estua ry Dome study site in Tampa Bay 10 0 Ta ble C6: Abundance (# individuals m 2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Lower Estuar y Shell study site in Tampa Bay 10 4

PAGE 6

iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map showing the spatial extent of oyster reef, mangrove, seawall, and oyster restoration locations in Tampa Bay, Florida. 3 Figure 2 : Map showing the location of each of the six study sites, and the locati on of the four representative habitats/stations within each site, in Tampa Bay, Florida. 1 4 Figure 3 : Salinity in each of three Tampa Bay estuarine strata. 25 Figure 4 : Temperature in each of three Tampa Bay estuarine strata. 26 Figure 5 : Mean condition index ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 28 Figure 6: Mean condition index ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 29 Figure 7: Mean dermo (a) prevalence and (b) intensity ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 32 Figure 8: Mean dermo prevalence of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009 33 Figure 9: Mean dermo intensity ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 34 Figure 10: Mean reproductive stage ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2 008 to September 2009. 36 Figure 11: Mean reproductive stage ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 37

PAGE 7

v Figure 12: Mean fecundity ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, res toration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 39 Figure 13: Mean fecundity ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from O ctober 2008 to September 2009. 40 Figure 14: Oyster recruitment, measured as mean spat per shell ( SD) collected over approximately four week intervals, from spat arrays placed in mangrove, seawall, restoration, and reef habitats over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. 42 Figure 15: Oyster recruitment, measured as mean spat per shell ( SD) collected over approximately 4 week intervals, from spat arrays placed in each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009 43 Figure 16: Mean oyster density per square meter ( SD) (a) and live oyster shell height ( SD) (b) in mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall habitats during March 2009. 46 Figure 17: Mean oyster density ( SD) from each habitat/station in March 2009. 47 Figure 18: Mean live oyster shell height ( SD) from each habitat/station in March 2009. 48 Figure 19: Mean abundance (SD) of phyla in mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall habitats. 50 Figure 20: Abundance of phyla from each habitat/station. 51 Figure 21: Percent composition of major taxonomic groups collected from reef habitat in the current study and from 5 major rivers on the Gulf Coast of Florida (adapted from Gorzelany, 1986). 67 Figure 22: MDS ordination plot (top) and corresponding p ercent similarity cluster dendrogram (bottom) of the mean organism abundance from each site (UE D, UE S, ME D, ME S, LE D, LE S)* habitat (MG, RF, RS, SW) combination labeled by strata. 6 8

PAGE 8

vi A BSTRACT The objective of this project was to document the status of oysters, Crassostrea virginica from non reef habitats throughout Tampa Bay, Florida, and asse s s the ecosystem contributions of those populations relative to reef dwelling oysters. The aspects of oyster ecology studied here include condition, prevalence and intensity of disease ( Perkins us marinus dermo), reproductive activity (including stage, fecundity, and juvenile recruitment), adult oyster density, and the faunal community associated with the oysters. The predominant source of variation was seasonal, with lesser contributions amon g sites, and in most cases little or no effect of the habitat type. Oysters populations from each habitat recruit juvenile oysters, produce mature individuals, and contribute viable gametes at the same magnitude with similar seasonality. The associated faunal communities were also largely similar between habitats at any given site. Measures of oyster density, combined with estimates of the total available habitat, suggest that natural oyster reefs may represent only a small portion of the total oyster c ommunity in Tampa Bay, while oysters associated with mangrove habitats and seawalls are probably the most abundant in the bay. Additional mapping and quantification of these habitats would help to define their bay wide ecosystem services value. Restorati on projects, though small in size relative to other habitats, do provide alternative and additional habitat with comparable value to other oyster bearing habitats.

PAGE 9

1 INTRODUCTION The eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) was harvested for food and various other uses prior to European colonization of the North American continent, and the species continues to support important commercial and recreational fisheries throughout its range along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts (MacKenzie et al., 1997). Eastern oysters also function as ecosystem engineers, and have been identified as a valued ecosystem component in all estuaries in which they occur due t o their many ecological roles (Beck et al., 2001 ). These roles include providing habitat for a variety of economically and ecologically important species, catalyzing the transfer of nutrients between the water column and benthos, and reducing eutrophicati on and shoreline erosion (Bahr and Lanier, 1981). Most studies of C. virginica have focused on populations occurring within the framework of a n oyster reef This is entirely sensible because reef s are considered to be the predominant natural habitat f or oysters throughout their range. However, oysters also naturally occur on the roots of red mangroves ( Rhizophora mangle ) and contribute both habitat and production as members of the mangrove community. The specific contributions of oysters to the mangr ove community have been poorly studied, and there is even less information available on the ecological contributions of oysters inhabiting man made habitats such as seawalls, bridge pilings, and substrate deposited for oyster restoration. These a re impor tant oversight s relative to efforts to understand habitat

PAGE 10

2 connectivity, nutrient cycling, and the effectiveness of oyster reef restoration programs, particularly when considering the continually increasing occurrence of these habitats within the coastal zo ne. In the Tampa Bay estuary, there are an estimated 550 linear kilometers of seawall and other solid man made structures, as well as approximately 1 132 linear kilometers of mangrove periphery ( F FWC C FWRI Center for Spatial Analysis ), available for oys ter colonization (Figure 1). If we estimate the width of the intertidal range available for oyster colonization in both of these habitats to be approximately 0.5 m, we find that there are approximately 841 km 2 of oyster habitat unaccounted for in a previo us oyster would appear to provide far more surface area for oyster colonization due to their intricate root structure T herefore this estimation of 841 km 2 is undoubtedly substantially lower than the real value. Nevertheless, it is evident that the ecosystem contributions of oysters living on mangroves and man made substrates may far exceed those contributions from the 0.16 km 2 of oyster reef present in the Tampa Bay estua rine system ( al., 2006 ). In addition, there have also been over 100 oyster restoration projects in the bay, although some of these projects may represent multiple efforts at a single site (Figure 1). Within Tampa Bay, those oyster restoration projects have mainly been implemented using two different substrates : concrete domes also known as reef balls and planted shell or cultch usually bound in mesh bags The gross ecological contributions of oysters living on restoration substrates are also not well understood

PAGE 11

3 Figure 1 Map showing the spatial extent of oyster reef, mangrove, seawall, and oyster restoration locations in Tampa Bay, Florida

PAGE 12

4 T o better understand the contributions of non reef dwelling oysters to local estuarine ecology, basic biological and ecological information on oysters growing within typical reef habitat as well as on seawalls, mangroves, and restoration substrate was collected from several sites within Tampa Bay. Measures of oyster physiological condition, parasi tic infection intensity and prevalence, reproductive development, juvenile recruitment, and oyster density have been used in several long term oyster monitoring projects throughout Florida (Arnold et al., 2008; Tolley et al., 2005; Volety et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2005) and the methods are well established. Data from those studies span over six years and include observations from most of the major estuaries in southern Florida including Tampa Bay, and served as a baseline for compariso n to the data collected in the present study. In addition to the parameters already mentioned, oyster fecundity and community composition of the meiofauna inhabiting each of the oyster habitats were also determined. Physiological condition, parasitic inf ection intensity and prevalence, reproductive development, fecundity, and juvenile recruitment were measured monthly while density and community composition were estimated on a single occasion. The resultant data were used to determine population level d ifferences in basic biological function and ecological distribution of oysters dwelling on reefs, mangroves, seawalls, and restoration substrates throughout Tampa Bay.

PAGE 13

5 Monthly Parameters Condition Index Condition index is a measure of the physiological condition of an animal. In terms of bivalves, it is an indication of the extent to which the oyster has utilized the volume of its shell for tissue growth and is an efficient method for measuring physiolog ical change over time. This index has been used to estimate a number of factors in bivalves including commercial meat yield, seasonal lipid content associated with gametogensis (Austin et al., 1993; Abbe and Albright, 2003), and variations in the El Nino Southern Oscillation (Schoener and Tufts, 1987). P atterns in condition index have been linked to both gametic and somatic metabolic processes ( Walne, 1969 ; Lucas and Beninger, 1985 ), but may be confounded by several stressors including the parasitic prot ozoan Perkinsus marinus (Chu and Volety 1997) the commensal mud worm Polydora sp (Wargo and Ford, 1993) the pea crab Zaops ostreum previously Pinnotheres ostreum (Mercado Silva, 2005), food limitation ( Mercado Silva, 2005 ), and pollution (Lawrence and Scott, 1982). Several methods of measuring the condition index of bivalves have been used in previous studies and all are based on the premise that cavity contents and shell growth will follow a standard ratio in a healthy oyster (Lawrence and Scott, 1982) Differences arise in terms of how to most effectively measure oyster growth. This can be done using s hell height, shell weight, and the interior volume of the shell. A comparison of the different methods used to determine condition index and the resultant ratios are described by Mercado Silva (2005). The method used in this study follows that of Rainer and Mann (1992), and compares the dry tissue weight to the dried shell weight. Condition

PAGE 14

6 index, regardless of the method used, provides an inexpensive and reliable measurement of oyster physiological condition and change over time. Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) Perkinsus marinus, a protozoan parasite that causes the dermo disease in C. virginica, has been attributed to widespread mortalities throughout the range of the eastern oyster. The disease was first detected in the Gulf of Mexico (Ray, 195 2 ) an d has since spread up the Atlantic coast into Canada. Temperature and salinity strongly influence the prevalence and distribution of the parasite, although the disease persists across a wide range of latitudes and can be found from the mouth to the upper reaches of an individual estuary (Soniat, 1985). The seasonal patterns and parasitic load of several reefs in Tampa Bay have been monitored for the past several years and no major mortality events due to dermo have been detected (Arnold et al., 2008). H owever, it is reasonable to speculate that one of the alternate habitats could possess a functional advantage or disadvantage to the inherent health of the oysters, and resulting parasitic load, as influenced by differences in vertical location, density, w ater quality, or other unexplained factors. Reproductive Development Oysters possess an evolutionarily simple, yet highly variable reproductive cycle. An individual can reach sexual maturity within the same season in which they settle, potentially as ea rly as three months after settlement (Hayes and Menzel, 1981). Reproductive development has been shown to be highly dependent on water temperature,

PAGE 15

7 with gametogenesis occurring most efficiently at 25C and inhibited in waters below 10C (Loosanoff and Dav is, 1952). The initiation of gametogenesis has been identified as a main source of variability in the physiology of oysters and can potentially be detected with changes in condition index (Fisher et. al., 1996). The reproductive stages of the gonads in C. virginica were first characterized by Kennedy and Battle (1964) and are classified in to three major periods: developing, spawning, and post spawned gonad. A developing gonad consists of several stages and can be identified by the presence of undiffere ntiated germinal epithelium, the presence of Leydig cells, and narrow to indistinguishable follicles distributed around the periphery of the gonadal area. These stages are followed by the sexual differentiation stages marked by an expansion of the area oc cupied by the follicles, allowing the sex of the individual to be determined. After sexual differentiation gametogensis will progress and produce mature spermatozoa or oocytes. Mature gametes will then expand in size in preparation for spawning. The dis charge of large numbers of mature gametes during the spawning stage leaves the center of the follicles devoid of ma ture gametes, follicle walls lined with maturing gametes, and a fully distended follicle area. As the gonad approaches the post spawned and quiescent stage s follicle walls begin to shrink ultimately resulting in atrophy of the gonadal ducts, follicles, and remaining gametogenic cells. Staging of gametogenic development was standardized by Fisher et al. (1996) by grading histological section s of the oyster gonad on a 0 10 scale with 0 representing a gonad in the resting stage, 1 5 representing the progression of pre spawning stages, and 6 10 representing the post spawning stages.

PAGE 16

8 Fecundity In addition to reproductive stage, which provi des a measure of the timing of spawning events, the fecundity of oysters was also measured to estimate the intensity of those spawning events from each habitat throughout the bay. Unlike the mass spawning events experienced in northern latitudes research ers have reported a critical spawning temperature for C. virg i ni c a around 20 C ( Loosanoff and Nomejko, 1951, Loosanoff 1968 ). Much of C. virginica range beginning in Cape Canaveral and ranging throughout Gulf of Mexico contains s hallow water estuaries with water temperatures that remain above this threshold for a large portion of the calendar year (Hayes and Menzel, 1981) Consequently, oysters have been shown to spawn throughout the year and an individual oyster may spawn repeatedly in a given year in this same region ( Hayes and Menzel, 1981, Kennedy, 1996). As a result, single sampling events may severely underestimate the reproductive output of southern C. virginica populations over an entire year. For these reasons, fecundity, like the other biological metrics mentioned here, was sampled on a monthly basis for a n entire year. Recruitment O yster densities have decreased substantially in Tampa Bay and other southern estuaries over the past 100 years Since oysters are gregarious in nature, the declining presence of adult oysters throughout Tampa Bay means there is less available substrate for new recruits to settle. As reported o yster recruitment appears to be substrate limit ed rather than limited by the total reproductive output of the adult population in southern estuaries Mean juvenile densities reaching as high as 50

PAGE 17

9 spat per oyster shell per month have been observed in Tampa Bay (Arnold et al., 2008). The majority of oyster recruitment within Tampa Bay and other southern estuaries occurs between June and October ( Kenny et al., 1990; Michener and Kenny, 199 1 al., 1995; Arnold et al., 2008 ). Recruitment rates are intrinsically related to gametogensis and fec undity; however neither ha s satisfactorily predicted recruitment (Ingle, 1952). Larval oysters settle onto hard substrates such as existing oyster shell, the roots of mangroves, and man made substrates such as cement and metal barriers. However, differen t substrates have been shown to recruit oysters at different rates as well as affect survival and mortality rates (Michener et al., 1995). No previous studies have compared the spatfall rates and the resultant adult densities of those alternate habitats Single Event Parameters Size and Density Previous studies have estimated the total acreage of oyster reefs in Tampa Bay ( ) and the mean density of oysters in the southern portion of the bay (Arnold et al., 2008). However, no effort h as been made to estimate the density or biomass of oysters dwelling on mangroves, seawall, and restoration substrates despite their overwhelming presence throughout the bay. Initial estimates suggest that these alternate habitats may have larger overall contributions to ecosystem function in Tampa Bay.

PAGE 18

10 Community Composition The biogenic habitat created by oyster reefs creates a three dimensional structure that provides food, habitat, and refuge for a variety of mo t ile and sessile organisms. Studies performed throughout the southeast reveal a diverse oyster reef community with over 300 associated species (Wells, 1961; Dame, 1979; Bahr and Lanier, 1 981; Zimmerman et al., 1989 ) and as a result oyster reefs are designated as essential fish habitat for a number of species (Coen et. al, 1999). Wh ile several studies have investigated the ecological contributions of anthropogenic habitats including bridge pilings, seawalls, and offshore drilling platforms, most of these efforts have focused on rocky intertidal shorelines ( Glasby and Connell, 1999 ; C onnell, 2001 ; Ponti et al., 2002 ; Moreira et al. 2006 ). There is some disagreement as to whether these artificial substrates act as surrogates to the ir natural counterparts or whether they support differen t communities (Bulleri, 2005). The community com position of both natural and artificial substrates including mangrove, oyster reef, restoration substrates and seawalls was investigated in this study. Summary In summary, the biological and ecological data reported here will provide a full suite of complimentary data regarding the entirety of oyster populations throughout Tampa Bay. Furthermore, for the first time, the contributions of oysters from non reef habitats to both population and ecosystem function will be investigated This study will be applicable in the development of shoreline conservation and mitigation strategies to

PAGE 19

11 best preserve and restore the critical ecosystem benefits provided by oysters within Tampa Bay.

PAGE 20

12 METHODS Study Sites Tampa Bay is a large shallow subtropical open water estuary that opens to the Gulf of Mexico. The basin is influenced tidally and by four rivers, the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers to the northeast and the Manatee and Little Manatee Rivers to the southeast, which a ll contribute substantial freshwater flow to the bay. The shoreline of Tampa Bay is dominated by mangroves and seawalls, both of which serve as habitat for oyster recruitment. With an area weighted depth of about 4 m ( Weisberg and Zheng, 2006 ) the entire bay is subject to large fluctuations of salinity and temperature with in the intertidal zone, about 1.25 m (Weisberg and Zheng, 2006), where oysters typically reside. Study sites were selected throughout Tampa Bay based on the presence of oysters growing on reefs (RF), mangroves (MG), seawalls (SW), and restoration substrates (RS) in close proximity to one another (Figure 2). Those sites were stratified as upper (UE), mid dle (ME), and lower (LE) estuary according to their relative distance from the mouth of Tampa Bay to account for differences in salinity regimes. Since there were two predominant substrates (oyster domes and bagged shell) used for oyster restoration in Tampa Bay prior to initiation of this study, two study sites within eac h stratum were selected : one with oyster domes (D) and one with bagged oysters shell (S) to serve as the restoration substrate within each site For the purposes of this study, documenting the status of oysters from each type of habitat as a whole, both t ypes of restoration substrate

PAGE 21

13 were treated a s a single type of habitat and are referred to with the generic term and S are used only a s site identifiers, and have no statistical implications. As a re sult of this design, a total of six study sites each containing reef, mangrove, seawall and restoration habitat were to the oysters from a specific habitat within a given study site (Appendix 1). Monthly Parameters Water Quality Monthly water quality sampling was conducted in conjunction with field sampling at all stations within each study site. Salinity and temperature were recorded using a YSI 85 instrument when available. No water quality data were recorded for months when YSI was not ava ilable. Measurements were taken on a single occasion during oyster collections at each station during each month. Condition Index Twenty four individual oysters were collected from each station, within each study site, on a monthly basis from October 6, 2008 to September 10, 2009. Of those oysters collected from each station, eight were haphazardly selected for condition index analysis and the remaining oysters held for other biological measurements. All oysters were scraped clean of fouling organisms and thoroughly scrubbed to remove any excess debris.

PAGE 22

14 Figure 2 Map showing the location of each of the six study sites, and the location of the four representative habitats/stations within each site in Tampa Bay, Florida.

PAGE 23

15 Once completely clean, she ll height (mm) and total wet weight (g) of each individual was measured. Oysters were then shucked and the oyster tissue was placed in a pre weighed aluminum tare pan and weighed. Both the oyster tissues and shells were dried at 60 for a minimum of 48 h ours and then dry tissue and dry shell weights were recorded. Condition index was calculated as the ratio of dry tissue mass to dry shell mass for each individual. Mean condition index was calculated at each habitat within each study site for every month Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) The prevalence and intensity of Perkinsus marinus (dermo) was diagnosed from eight thioglycollate media (RFTM) method as described by Bushek et al. (1994). The shell height of each oyster was recorded and the oyster was shucked with a sterile oyster knife. Small 1 cm 2 pieces of mantle and gill were clipped from each individual using sterile surgical scissors, placed in 9.5 mL of RFTM treated with antibiotics and antifungals, and incubated for seven days in dark, room temperature conditions. After the incubation period, tissues were placed on a microscope slide, macerated with sterile razor blades, ution. Mantle and gill tissues were then examined at 40x magnification for the presence of hypnospores, i.e. enlarged cells stained solution. Parasite density (infection intensity) was ranked according to the Mackin scale (Table 1; Mackin, 1962) which ranges from 0 (uninfected) to 5 (heavy infection). The mean infection intensity for each oyster was calculated as the average of the infection intensity from the mantle and gill tissues. Mean infection intensity and the percent of

PAGE 24

16 oysters in fected with the disease w ere calculated at each habitat within each study site for every month. Table 1 Mackin (1962) scale showing different stages of Perkinsus marinus (dermo) infection intensity Stage Category Cell Number Notes 0 Uninfected No cells detected 0.5 Very light <10 cells in entire preparation 1 Light 11 100 cells in entire preparation Cells scattered or in localized clusters of 10 15 cells 2 Light moderate Cells distributed in local concentrations of 24 50 cells; or uniformly distributed so that 2 3 cells occur in each field at 100X 3 Moderate 3 cells in all fields at 100X Masses of 50 cells may occur 4 Moderate heavy Cells present in high numbers in all tissues Less than half of tissue appears blue black macroscopically 5 Heavy Cells in enormous numbers Most tissue appears blue black macroscopically Reproductive Development The remaining oyster tissues from the individuals used in the disease analysis were preserved in Di for estimates of reproductive development. Oyster two days on a shaker set on low speed. Once fixed, a cross section was taken approximately half way between the adductor muscle and the anterior margin, to include the gonad, using a microtome blade. Cross sections were placed in histological tissue cassettes and rinsed in tap water overnight. Tissue cassettes were then placed in 70% ethanol and sent to the Fish and Wildlife Research In stitute histology lab (St. Petersburg, FL) for preparation.

PAGE 25

17 Histological preparation consisted of dehydrating each oyster tissue in 95% ethanol for a minimum of three hours, then embedding the tissue in paraffin. Cross sections of gonad no thinner than 6 0 m (the approximate maximum diameter of an oocyte) were cut using a microtome blade. The gonad sections were then stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and mounted onto glass slides for analysis. Histological cross sections were examined at 200 400X magn ification to determine gender if possible and to assign a reproductive stage according to the classifica tion scheme from Arnold et al. ( 2008 ) (Table 2). For statistical analyses, the classification scale was folded from a 0 10 to a 0 5 scale with 0 repres enting the neuter or resting phase, and 5 the pre and post initial spawning phase where the gonad is most fecund as described by Wilson et al. ( 2005 ) Mean reproductive stage was calculated at each habitat within each study site for every month. Fecu ndity Oyster fecundity was estimated using the method described by Cox and Mann (1992), varying only in that fresh oysters were used to estimate fecundity instead of frozen individuals. Eight randomly selected individuals from each station were sexed by slicing into the gonad using a razor blade and blotting the tissue onto a slide. The slide was then inspected at up to 1 000x for the presence of eggs or sperm, although eggs could be discerned at lower magnification. I f any females were collected the first t hree females from each station were used to estimate fecundit y. Female oysters were initially assigned a rank of 1 (watery gonad), 2 (milky gonad, digestive gland visible), or 3 (milky

PAGE 26

18 gonad, digestive gland barely visible). The entire female oyster tissue was then macerated using razor blades and blended in a War ing Commercial blender Table 2 Reproductive staging criteria for oysters collected from Florida wat ers Initial Folded Stage Description 0 0 Neuter or resting stage with no visible signs of gametes 1 1 Gametogenesis has begun with no mature gametes 2 2 First appearance of mature gametes 3 3 Follicles have equal proportions of mature and developing gametes 4 4 Follicles dominated by mature gametes 5 5 Follicles distended and filled with ripe gametes, limited gametogenesis, ova compacted into polygonal configurations, and sperm have visible tails 6 5 Active emission (spawning) occurring 7 4 Follicles one half depleted of mature gametes 8 3 Gonadal area is reduced, follicles two thirds depleted of mature gametes 9 2 Only residual gametes remain, some cytolysis evident 10 1 Gonads completely devoid of gametes, and cytolysis is ongoing (model 51BL31) for 30 seconds setting in 200 m L of filtered seawater. The suspension was then sieved through a 180 m and 25 m sieve stack and rinsed with approximately 500 m L of filtered seawater into a 50 m L falcon tube. The condensed filtrate was then diluted to a total volume of 50 m L with filte red seawater. Three replicate 1 mL aliquots were drawn from each sample and placed in a 1 m L Sedgwick Rafter counting cell. A Sedgwick Rafter cell holds exactly 1 m L of liquid, and is divided into 1 L squares which allow unbiased extrapolations of oocyte s at high densities.

PAGE 27

19 Oocytes were enumerated under 40x magnification and the total number of oocytes per oyster extrapolated from the replicate mean. Mean fecundity was calculated at each habitat within each study site for every month. Recruitment Oys ter recruitment was monitored monthly at each station using oyster spat collection arrays. Each array consisted of six axenic oyster shells, each with a hole drilled in the center, strung on 18 gauge galvanized wire. Oyster shells were oriented with the interior margin, or smooth side, of the shell facing downwards. Spat arrays were initially deployed at each station on August 29, 2008. At each station, arrays were placed at approximately the midpoint of the vertical distribution of oysters and left to soak for a month. Target soak time was approximately 4 weeks and actual soak time varied between 19 41 days at which point the arrays were replaced with new ones. Soaked spat arrays were taken back to the laboratory and the number of oyster spat settled on the underside of each individual shell was enumerated. In accordance with Arnold et al. (2008), top and bottom shells on the shell string were excluded from results since those shells experienced different levels of exposure than those in the middle o f the shell string. Mean recruitment was calculated at each habitat within each study site for every month.

PAGE 28

20 Single Event Parameters Size Density, and Biomass The live oyster density, proportion of live oysters, and the mean shell height of oysters was determined by assessing 15 replicate 0.25 m 2 surface area samples (quadrats) at each station for a total of 360 samples (6 sites x 4 habitats x 15 samples). Dens ity sampling was completed at each station during March 2009. The total number of live and dead (articulated shell) oysters within each replicate was counted and the first 15 live oysters counted from each replicate were measured for shell height (SH=the maximum linear distance from umbo to the ventral shell margin). The vertical height (m) of oyster habitat in each replicate was also measured from the lowest point of live oyster excavation All living or recently dead oysters were counted regardless of size, and every 0.25 m 2 replicate was considered oyster habitat if it contained at least one oyster. Since the oyster habitats vary considerably in shape, size, and orientation, an appropriate sampling strategy was applied to each habitat Oyster reefs w ere sampled using haphazardly placed 0.25 m 2 quadrats and excavated to a depth where no live oysters could be found. The appropriate survey area of seawall stations was determined by measuring the entire width (tidal range) of the oyster band and taking t he necessary horizontal length of seawall to equal 0.25 m 2 Mangrove roots were sampled by haphazardly choosing a location along the mangrove perimeter and measuring the surface area of the individual roots around that location. In all cases, multiple pr op roots were required to achieve a total surface area of 0.25 m 2 The survey area of oyster domes was determined by methods similar to that of the seawall stations, while survey areas chosen at shell bag restoration stations were determined by the quadra t used for reef stations.

PAGE 29

21 T o estimate the relative biomass of oyster populations from these four types of shell height and dry tissue weights, measured in conjunction wit h condition index. Community Composition Oyster habitat was excavated from each station to assess differences in the community structure each type of habitat supports. Two duplicate samples of equivalent surface area were taken from each station within each study site. The standard surface area collected within each study site was determined by scraping a 10 cm band of seawall spanning the entire wid th of oyster habitat. The surface area scraped in this 10 cm band was then measured and equivalent surface areas were collected from each of the other three habitats within a given study site (Table 3). Tidal height, measured from mean low water, was als o recorded at the time of collection. Once collected, oyster clumps were broken up using an oyster knife, and rinsed through a 2mm and 500 m sieve stack with filtered seawater. Every living animal retained on both sieves, including oysters, was collecte d and preserved in a 10% buffered formalin solution with filtered seawater. Samples were allowed to fix for seven days, rinsed, transferred to 70% ethanol, and lightly stained with Rose Bengal. Large samples were split to a standard volume of oyster shell using an oversized plankton splitter adapted from a smaller version described by Motoda (1959). All organisms were identified to the lowest possible taxon and enumerated, including those dwelli ng inside the oysters such as pea crabs and Polydora worms. Organism abundance

PAGE 30

22 was standardized to one square meter of surface area, based on the area sampled as well as the number of splits required. Statistical Analys e s All data were analyzed using ge neralized linear mixed models in SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) unless otherwise noted. Monthly parameters including condition index, Perkinsus marinus (dermo) infection intensity and prevalence, reproductive development, fecundity, and re cruitment were analyzed by ANOVA with several factors in cluding habitat, study site month, and the interaction of habitat and time. The single sample event parameters, density and community diversity, were analyzed by similar methods with the exclusion o f the repeated measure (month). All data were tested for normality using residual analysis N atural log transformations of the data were required to satisfy the model assumptions for recruitment and density parameters. A suitable transformation to fit t he general ANOVA used in the other parameters could not be established for fecundity (oocyte counts), so an analysis of variance was performed on the ranked data. Post hoc analysis of all of the factors included in the ANOVA was performed using least squ are means pair wise comparisons. All significance was established at the P<0.05 level. Graphic representations of all the data are displayed as the untransformed data regardless of the analysis used. Community composition data were further analyzed usin g Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research (PRIMER) software package (PRIMER E Ltd., Plymouth, UK). The total organism abundance from each station was subject to a square root transformation and the cluster and multi dimensional scaling plo ts were generated

PAGE 31

23 from a Bray Curtis similarity matrix of the transformed data. Statistically significant clusters of stations were determined using a SIMPROF test assuming no a priori structure to the station mean abundances. Table 3. Total area sampled for community co mposition analysis at each station. Upper, Mid, and Lower Estuary Strata are abbreviated by UE, ME, and LE, respectively. Habitats are abbreviated seawall (SW) mangrove (MG) reef (RF) and restoration (RS) Strata Habitat Site Date Sampled Band Width (cm) Sample Area per Rep (cm 2 ) UE SW D 9/17/2008 50 500 UE MG D 9/17/2008 50 500 UE RF D 9/17/2008 50 500 UE RS D 9/17/2008 50 500 UE SW S 9/16/2008 38 380 UE MG S 9/16/2008 38 380 UE RF S 9/16/2008 38 380 UE RS S 9/16/2008 38 380 ME SW D 9/3/2008 34 340 ME MG D 9/3/2008 34 340 ME RF D 9/3/2008 34 340 ME RS D 9/3/2008 34 340 ME SW S 9/15/2008 38 380 ME MG S 9/15/2008 38 380 ME RF S 9/15/2008 38 380 ME RS S 9/15/2008 38 380 LE SW D 9/3/2008 25 250 LE MG D 9/3/2008 25 250 LE RF D 9/3/2008 25 250 LE RS D 9/3/2008 25 250 LE SW S 8/28/2008 25 250 LE MG S 8/29/2008 25 250 LE RF S 8/29/2008 25 250 LE RS S 8/28/2008 25 250

PAGE 32

24 RESULTS Monthly Parameters Water Quality Over the course of the study, salinity remained high at all sites, varying from 21 to 38 ppt, and never falling below levels that would be considered stressful (10 ppt) to oysters (Figure 3). Salinity at the upper estuary stations was near or above 30 ppt during most summer month s, but did fall into the mid 20 s during September 2008 and again in August and September 2009. Salinity at the middle estuary dome site fell to just above 20 ppt in October 2008, but salinities at the middle estuary shell site remained near 30 ppt. Both middle estuary sites remained near or above 30 ppt until June 2009, then dropped and remained in the low 20s throughout the remainder of the study. During all months, salinity at both of the lower estu ary sites remained above 30 ppt. Temperatures exhibited typical seasonal patterns in each of the estuarine strata over the course of the study ranging from 10 to 33 o C over the 12 months (Figure 4). Temperature at the onset of the study was near 30 o C a t all sites, and fell during fall and winter to lows of 10 15 o C in February 2009. Temperatures had climbed to near 30 o C again by June at all sites and remained high for the remainder of the study.

PAGE 33

25 Figure 3 Salinit y in each of three Tampa Bay estuarine strata.

PAGE 34

26 Figure 4 Temperature in each of three Tampa Bay estuarine strata.

PAGE 35

27 Condition Index Condition index did not vary significantly between habitats or the interaction of hab itat and month, but did display significant monthly (P<0.0 0 01) and site to site (P<0.00 0 1) variations (Table 4). Oysters collected from each of the four habitats between January and June 2009 typicall y had higher mean condition indices compared to those c ollected between October and December 2008 or July and September 2009 (Figure 5). The seasonal trends in condition index varied between sites (Figure 6). At the ME D study site, there was a pronounced peak during the months of January through June in al l four habitats although the mean condition index for the reef oysters during February and March was slightly lower than that of the other habitats within that site. Both lower estuary sites (LE D and LE S) experienced a marked increase in condition inde x between January and February in all four habitats within each respective site. The two upper estuary sites (UE D and UE S) and the ME S site did not experience similar peaks in mean condition index during the early months of 2009 although the standard deviation was noticeably greater in March for the reef stations in the UE D and UE S sites. Table 4. Tests of f ixed e ffects on c ondition i ndex measured as the ratio of dry tissue weight to dry shell weight of individuals. Resul ts of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value) and corresponding probability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 462 2.04 0.1079 Month 11 734 17.39 < 0 .0001 Site 5 446 16.31 < 0 .0001 Habitat*Month 33 731 1.05 0.3997

PAGE 36

28 Figure 5. Mean condition index ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 37

29 Figure 6. Mean condition index ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 38

30 Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) Dermo infection prevalence varied significantly between habitat (P<0.001), month (P<0.001), and site (P<0.001), but the interaction term was not significant (Table 5). Infection intensity was highest in oysters collected from natural ree fs (59%). Seawall (45%) and mangrove (42%) oysters had fewer infected oysters, while restoration site oysters (38%) had the least number of infected oysters. Seasonally, dermo prevalence was highest in oysters collected in the fall (September November; average of 60.5%), lowest in the spring (April May; average = 32.8%), and intermediate at other times (Figure 7a). When comparing sites, significant variation was observed, but no discernable pattern could be detected (Figure 8). Mean dermo prevalence was nearly 70% at the upper estuary dome site but less than 50% at all other sites, ranging from 32 to 47% of oysters bearing detectable levels of dermo. Table 5. Tests of f ixed e ffects on d ermo i nfection p revalence measured as the proportion of oysters with a detectable level of dermo Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value) and corresponding pro bability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 845.6 17.52 < 0 .0001 Month 11 655 7.03 < 0 .0001 Site 5 620.6 22.07 < 0 .0001 Habitat*Month 33 828.6 1.14 0.2669 Like dermo infection prevalence, infection intensity also varied significantly between habitat, month, and site (P<0.001), while the interaction term was not significant (Table 6). In addition, intensity levels above one were rare, indicating few oysters would be cr itically impaired by their level of infection (typically assumed to be a level of three

PAGE 39

31 or higher). Mean dermo intensity was higher in oysters collected on natural reefs (0.67) than from other habitats. Seawall oysters (0.53) had lower infection levels an d were similar to mangrove oysters (0.49) but greater than restoration site oysters (0.39). Seasonally, dermo intensity was highest in oysters collected in fall samples (September November; average intensity of 0.81), lowest in the winter and spring (Ja nuary June; average of 0.34), and intermediate at other times (Figure 7b). When comparing sites, significant variation was observed, but no discernable pattern could be detected. Intensity was highest (though still low overall) at the upper estuary dome site (0.86) but very low at all other sites, with an average intensity of 0.45 (Figure 9) Table 6. Tests of f ixed e ffects on d ermo i nfection i ntensity measured in accordance with the Mackin scale (Mackin, 1962). Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value) and corresponding pro bability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 844 14.37 < 0 .0001 Month 11 652 11.2 < 0 .0001 Site 5 616 23.62 < 0 .0001 Habitat*Month 33 827 1.14 0.2708

PAGE 40

32 Figure 7. Mean dermo (a) prevalence and (b) intensity ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 41

33 Figure 8. Mean dermo prevalence of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 42

34 Figure 9. Mean dermo intensity ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 43

35 Reproductive Development Mean reproductive stage was not found to vary significantly between habitats but did vary significantly by month, site and the interaction of month and habitat (P<0.0001; Table 7). The seasonality of reproductive stage was sharply divided by a rapid increase in the mean reproductive stage from March (1.28) to April (3.96). Once this shift occurred, mean reproductive stage remained fairly high for the remainder of the study (April September average of 3.86). During the fall of 2008, reproductive stage was intermediate in October (2.39) then fell and remained low until spring (November to March average of 0.99; Figure 10). Mean monthly reproductive stage of oysters from the LE S study site was 2.87 significantly higher than all other sites (P >0.05) for the entire 12 month study period. Mean reproductive stage of oysters from the UE D site was signifi cantly lower (2.12) when compared to the remaining four sites which did not vary significantly among each other across the entire 12 months (Figure 11). Table 7. Tests of f ixed e ffects on r eproductive s tage scored from histological cross sections in acc ordance with the methods proposed by Wilson et al (2005) Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value) and corresponding pro bability (Pr > F) are display ed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 510 0.42 0.7367 Month 11 735 181.1 < 0 .0001 Site 5 496 11.13 < 0 .0001 Habitat*Month 33 733 2.27 < 0 .0001

PAGE 44

36 Figure 10 Mean reproductive stage ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 45

37 Figure 11. Mean reproductive stage ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 46

38 Fecundity Oyster fecundity was highly variable between individual oysters collected within each station. Month (P< 0.001), site (P=0.0005), and the interaction of habitat and month (P=0.0153) were all found to have a significant effect on oyster fecundity (Table 8). No significant differences in mean fecundity were detected between habitats (P =0.2304 ). Fecundity generally dropped from intermediate values at the onset of the study through January, though the pattern for individual habitats was quite variable (Figure 12). The overall mean in all habitats was highest for the period from April through June, followed by a drop in fecundity in oysters from all habitats, then a gradual increase again through the end of the study in September. The upper estuary sites appeared to have a longer winter resting period, with almost no eggs detected in females for the months o f December through March (Figure 13). The middle and lower estuary sites had comparatively shorter winter periods when no females had detectable numbers of eggs. A 2L:1 ratio of female to male oysters was found to be largely similar between habitat type s. Table 8. Tests of f ixed e ffects f ecundity measured as the mean number of oocytes per individual. Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value) and co rresponding pro bability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 530 1.44 0.2304 Month 11 172 10.98 < 0 .0001 Site 5 103 4.81 0.0005 Habitat*Month 32 444 1.65 0.0153

PAGE 47

39 Figure 12 Mean fecundity ( SD) of oysters collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall substrates over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. Gaps in data are associated with the lack of mature females from any given habitat and month and coincide with low mean reproductive stage (Figure 10).

PAGE 48

40 Figure 13. Mean fecundity ( SD) of oysters collected from each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009. Gaps in data are associated with the lack of mature females from any given site and month and coincide with low mean reprodu ctive stage (Figure 11).

PAGE 49

41 Recruitment Recruitment was significantly different among sites (P=0.00 20 ) and months ( P <0.00 0 1) (Table 9). No significant differences were detected between habitat s and the interaction of habitat and time Recruitment rates (number spat/shell/month) were statistically similar a nd highest in the mangrove (6.2 0 ), reef (5.6 2 ) and seawall (6. 79 ) habitats but lower a t the restoration stations (3. 68 ). Seasonally, recruitment rates peaked in all four habitats during the month of J uly (Figure 14). At the onset of the study (September October), all habitats had some recruitment, though the level was low. Recruitment continued to decline until no spat were detected on stringers retrieved in January, February and March from any of th e habitats. Seawall and restoration sites had few spat (<1 spat per shell) on stringers retrieved during the month of April but all four habitats experienced some level of recruitment during the month of May. The mean number of spat per shell increased f rom the May through July retrievals. Peak recruitment rates for each habitat dur ing the month of July were 16.5 18.0 (mangrove), 14.9 21.0 (reef), 13.1 16.0 (restoration), and 17.0 22.2 (seawall) spat per shell. A sharp decline in observed spat per shell occurred during August in the mangrove, reef, and restoration sites while seawall recruitment only declined slightly to 15.2 20.9 spat per shell. Recruitment dropped below five spat per shell in all four habitats during September. When comparing sites, significant variation was observed, but no discernable pattern could be detected (Figure 15). Highest levels of mean recruitment were observed in t he upper estuary dome site (9.0 ) while lowest rates occurred in th e upper estuary shell site (2.4 ). All of the sites followed the basic pattern of low numbers of recruits in the fall, no

PAGE 50

42 recruits in the winter, followed by increasing numbers of recruits in late spring until recruitment peaked in early summer. Table 9. Tests of f ixed e ffects of r ecr uitment measured as th e mean number of spat per azoic oyster shell. Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value), and corresponding pro bability (Pr > F) ar e displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 141 1.28 0. 2828 Month 11 756 36.88 < 0 .0001 Site 5 126 4.03 0. 0020 Habitat*Month 33 750 1.13 0. 2806 Figure 14 Oyster recruitment, measured as mean spat per shell ( SD) collected over approximately four week intervals, from spat arrays placed in mangrove, seawall, restoration, and reef habitats over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 51

43 Figure 15. Oyster recruitment, measured as mean spat per shell ( SD) collected over approximately 4 week intervals, from spat arrays placed in each habitat/station over a 12 month period from October 2008 to September 2009.

PAGE 52

44 Single Event Parameters Size, Density and Biomass Oyster density varied significantly by habitat, site and the interaction of the two factors (P< 0.0001; Table 10). Although plots of the raw data show seawall and restoration habitats as having the highest mean oyster densities (Figure 1 6 a ), mangroves actually had significantly higher mean and median densities (P<0.001; Table 10). This is likely du e to lower variability in samples collected from mangrove stations (1 780 836 oysters m 2 ; median = 1620 oysters m 2 ), i.e., those samples are consistently higher than those from seawall (2 410 3477 oysters m 2 ; median = 1118 oysters m 2 ) and restoration (1 878 2 526 oysters m 2 ; median = 1140 oysters m 2 ) substrates. Also, there were a few restoration and seawall samples from ME S site that were an order of magnitude higher in density and these likely skewed the raw means higher for those two habitats Reefs unequivocally had the lowest oyster densities across the entire bay (1 068 744 oysters m 2 median = 914 oysters m 2 ). Mangrove stations had a mean oyster density that ranged from 1,197 oysters m 2 at the LE S site to 2,394 oysters m 2 at the UE D site. Oyster reef stations had a minimum of 558 (LE D) and a maximum of 1,554 (UE D ) oysters m 2 Dome restoration sites ranged from 752 (LE D) to 1,560 (UE D) oysters m 2 and shelled sites ranged from 664 (LE S) to 4,570 (ME S) oysters m 2 Oyster density on seawalls ranged from 509 (UE S) to 9,312 (ME S) oysters m 2 In general, all of the habitats in upper and mid estuary sites had significantly higher densities than those in the lower estuary (Figure 17) Only one lower estuary station, MG LE D, had a mean density greater than 2,000 oysters m 2 The restoration and seawall stations within the ME S site had notably higher densities than any of the other stations with individual

PAGE 53

45 quadrat measurements as high as 20,244 and 18,236 oysters m 2 respectively. No clear pattern between the significance of the habitat and site interaction term was observed. Table 10. Tests of f ixed e ffects of oyster d ensity measured as the number of oysters m 2 Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), nu merator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value), and corresponding probability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 330 22.9 < 0 .0001 Site 5 330 40.62 < 0 .0001 Site*Habitat 15 330 17.11 < 0 .0001 Shell height varied significantly between habitat, site, and the interaction of the two terms (Table 11). Oyster reefs (37.9 14.6 ) and restoration substrates had significantly higher mean shell heights (37.7 15.1) than mangrove (32.1 13.8 ) and seawall stations (33.4 14.9 ) across the entire bay (Figure 16b) Mean shell heights at the LE D and LE S sites were significantly higher than those at the ME D site, which were significantly higher than the remaining mid and upper estuary study sites (Figure 1 8 ). The relationship between individual dry tissue weight (DW) and shell height (SH) is described by the equation DW = 0.0003 x SH 1.9072 Table 11. Tests of fi xed e ffects of oyster s hell h eight Results of each type o f fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value), and corresponding probability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 3515 41.54 < 0 .0001 Site 5 3515 45.09 < 0 .0001 Site*Habitat 15 3515 3.23 < 0 .0001

PAGE 54

46 Figure 16. Mean oyster density per square meter ( SD) (a) and live oyster shell height ( SD) (b) in mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall habitats during March 2009.

PAGE 55

47 Figure 17 Mean oyster density ( SD) from each habitat/station in March 2009.

PAGE 56

48 Figure 18. Mean live oyster shell height ( SD) from each habitat/station in March 2009.

PAGE 57

49 Community Composition Approximately 150 taxa representing 10 different phyla were collected from sampled locations in Tampa Bay. On average, 32 taxa were found at any individual station. Although the catch was diverse, only a few species accounted for the majority of species identified Overall, t he southern ribbed mussel, Geukensia granosissima was the most abundant organism contributing nearly 21% of the total followed by Crasso s trea virginica and the barnacle species complex which each contributed approximately 15%. Other abundant taxa included the polychaetes Polydora websteri (7%) and members of the family Syllidae (4%), as well as taxa from the tanaid family Leptocheliidae (4%). Not surprisingly, molluscs were the largest contributing phylum supplying 43% of the total with 40% contributed by bivalve molluscs alone (Figure 19) Other abundant phyla included arthropods (33%) and anne lids (19%). Comparisons of phyla contributions by habitat for each site are presented in Figure 20. The bivalves were dominated by C. v ir ginica G. granosissima and B. exustus The contribution of C. virginica to the bivalve group was fairly consistent at 20 to 40 percent and was not the most abundant bivalve overall. Oyster reef stations had the lowest density of bivalves. Seawall sites had the highest density of bivalves with a maximum of 1 .19 x10 5 individuals m 2 of seawall. Crepidula spp were the most abundant gastropods with a maximum density of 7. 05 x 10 3 individuals m 2 Boonea impressa an ectoparasite of C. virginica (White et al. 1988) was also found in densities as high as 1 .49 x 10 3 individuals m 2 The major contributor among the polyc haetes was the Polydora complex with a mean maximum abundance of 1 .19 x 10 4 individuals m 2

PAGE 58

50 Figure 19. Mean abundance (SD) of phyla in mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall habitats.

PAGE 59

51 Figure 20. Abundance of phyla from each habitat/station. Note differences in scale

PAGE 60

5 2 Stations in the lower estuary contained markedly fewer individuals from the Polydora complex compared to the mid and upper estuary study sites. Other abundant polychaetes included Syllidae spp Spirorbidae spp. Serpula vermicularis, and Neanthes succinea The group of t anaids was dominated by species from the Leptocheliidae family with a maximum den sity of 2 .07 x 10 4 individuals m 2 The two most abundant amphipods throughout every station w ere Laticorophium baconi and Parhyale hawaiensis with 2 .04 x 10 4 and 5 .28 x 10 3 individuals m 2 respectively Xanthid and p orcelain crabs comprised the majorit y of the decapods and were found in maximum densities of 5 .95 x 10 3 and 2 .21 x 10 3 individuals m 2 respectively Isopods consisted mainly of the species Sphaeroma quadridentata and were found at a maximum density of 2 .76 x 10 4 indi viduals m 2 When comparing overall abundances among habitats, seawall s had the highest densities with a mean of greater than 8 .00 x 10 4 individuals m 2 followed by restoration and mangrove habitats which had intermediate densities of approximately 5 .00 x 10 4 individuals m 2 Reef densities were the lowest with a mean density of approximately 2 .90 x 10 4 individuals m 2 Both C. virginica and G. granosissima were dominant species within each of the four habitats, although not usually the most abundant (Appendix 2). In the mangrove and seawall habitats, barnacles also contributed substantially to overall densities. The isopod Sphaeroma quadridentata was the m ost abundant species in reef habitat while P. websteri dominated in restoration habitat. Among the different study sites, the middle estuary sites had the greatest mean densities (dome >8 .30 x 10 4 individuals m 2 and shell >6 .90 x 10 4 individuals m 2 ). W ithin both sites, the highest abundances were again found in the seawall habitat, which

PAGE 61

53 were an order of magnitude greater than abundances found in the other three habitats. In both middle estuary sites, reef abundances were the lowest with approximately 3 0 0 x 10 4 individuals m 2 at the dome site and only 4 .78 x 10 3 individuals m 2 at the shell site. The upper estuary shell site had the lowest overall densities with approximately 2 .50 x 10 4 individuals m 2 The other four study sites were intermediate with densities ranging from approximately 4 .40 x 10 4 to 6 .90 x 10 4 individuals m 2 Dominant species in each study site differed substantially, but C. virginica was always within the top five contributors and in fact was the top contributor in the upper estuary shell site supplying 39% of the overall sample (Appendices 3 8). In the middle estuary dome site, G. granosissima contributed 66% of the total sample. Within most sites, two or three taxa dominated and contributed more than 70% of the entire sample. However, in both lower estuary sites the dominant taxa contributed a smaller percentage suggesting that there was more even representation among taxa in th ose samples. 1949), was found to be similar among all four habitats (P=0.6 09 ) but significantly different among sites (P=0.02 5 ; Table 12). Samples from the lower estuary shell sit e had the greatest mean diversity (2.45 0.14 ) and mean total taxa count (96) while those from the middle estuary dome site had the lowest diversity (1.47 0.33 ) and an intermediate taxa count (57). The lowest taxa number occurred in the middle estuary shell site (46) which along with the remaining three sites all had intermediate mean diversities ranging from 1.84 0.32 to 2.27 0.52

PAGE 62

54 Table 12. Tests of f ixed e Results of each type of fixed effect (Effect), numerator degrees of freedom (Num DF), denominator degrees of freedom (Den DF), F value (F Value), and corresponding pro bability (Pr > F) are displayed Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F Habitat 3 15 0.63 0.60 9 Site 5 15 3.59 0.02 5 Cluster analysis of mean organism abundance at each station did not reveal any distinct groupings among habitat types (Figure 22 ). Instead, study site and strata were more similar to one another regardless of habitat type Four statistically distinct clusters (A B, C, D ) of the 24 stations were found Of those 24 stations, 8 were determined to be outliers, and the remaining 16 fell into one of the four clusters. Cluster A was comprised of five stations, all of which were from the two lower estuary sites. Cluster B included the four stations found within the ME D study site Cluster C contained three stations, two of which were from the UE S site as well as the ME MG D station. Likewise, Cluster D contained three stations from the UE D study site and the M E MG S station. Major contributors to the similarity within groups and the dissimilarity between groups were driven by the abundance of of barnacles Polydora spp. C. virginica, and Leptochilidae spp

PAGE 63

55 DISCUSSION Oysters are most commonly associated with reef complexes located just offshore at depths ranging from intertidal to several meters, though most oysters in Florida are found at depths from 0 2 meters ( MacKenzie et al., 1997 ) One of the most common other natural habitats where oyste rs are also found are among the prop roots of mangroves (common in Tampa Bay) and in salt marshes (relatively uncommon in Tampa Bay). Data from oysters in these alternate natural habitats in Florida were previously lacking. The assumption for this study was that ecosystem contributions of oysters in non reef habitats (mangrove, reef, and restoration substrates) were comparable to reef dwelling oysters As a first step in the analyses, the data were examined for each metric to see if a detectable difference could be observed among the four habitats (with consideration for season where appropriate), and then further if any patterns existed among habitats within each of the six sites. The oysters monitored i n Tampa Bay from October 2008 to September 2009 exhibited similar values for biological metrics (condition index, disease load, reproductive stage, oocyte production, recruitment, density, and shell height) to oysters monitored in previous studies (Arnold et al. 2008). The predominant source of variability was a seasonal signal, with smaller contributions from both site location and habitat. The values of biological metrics from oysters dwelling on non reef habitats were generally determined to be simila r to those in reef habitat

PAGE 64

56 The community composition of fauna dwelling on differing oyster habitat s varied across sites but no differences were detected in biodiversity among habitats The relative contributions of oysters dwelling on each habitat to the ecology of the total oyster population within Tampa Bay is more dependent on the spatial extent of each habitat and the density at which oyster s occur on that habitat than on the act ual type of habitat they occupy Monthly Parameters The observed physical environmental parameters (salinity and temperature) were comparable to recent oyster studies but did not exhibit the full range of estuarine conditions anticipated in the study design. In Florida estuaries oysters are typically distributed over a large range of salinities, as low as low teens (Tolley et al., 2005) and even zero (Wilson et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2008) to near normal marine seawater. During this study, t emperatures followed a typical seasonal pattern for a subtropical estuary but salinities remained near or a bove optimal for oyster growth Previous observations on lower Tampa Bay oyster reefs documented salinities of around 30 ppt for the duration of a three year study (Arnold et al., 2008), much like those observed in this st udy. Measurements from upper Tampa Bay were expected to reach 10 ppt or lower as described in previous studies (McBride et al., 2001; Sheng and Yassuda 1995) but remained above 20 ppt There was a summer decline in sa linities in upper estuary sites, and an even more pronounced decline at middle estuary sites which were closer to freshwater sources despite being geographically closer to the mouth of the bay.

PAGE 65

57 Measures of condition in oysters can be highly variable, even within single studies covering mul tiple years. Arnold et al. (2008) describe three patterns of condition in Tampa Bay oysters in three years of observation: a winter peak with a gradual decline through summer, a bimodal trend with late spring and early fall peaks, and a single mid summer peak. Similarly, oysters in the St. Lucie estuary can have winter, summer and bimodal peaks in condition (Wilson et al., 2005 ) As described in the results, as a general pattern, oyster condition observed in the present study peaked in late winter then declined through summer, with modest rises again in late summer. This pattern was most pronounced in oyster s collected from the ME D site, but was also observed at LE D and LE S sites There was almost no discernable pattern at the middle estuary and uppe r estuary shell sites and there was a more pronounced summer peak at the upper estuary dome site. Of the two main diseases that have impacted oysters in the eastern United States, dermo ( Perkinsus marinus ) and MSX ( Haplosporidium nelsoni ), only dermo ca uses significant mortality in the Gulf of Mexico (Ford and Tripp, 1996). In this study, oysters from natural reefs had the highest dermo infection prevalence and intensity and oysters from all other habitats had lower rates, with restoration sites being t he lowest. As expected, prevalence and intensity were highest during late summer and early fall. In most estuaries, the fresher areas of the oyster range offer a refuge from dermo infection. However in this study, the highest rates of infection and highest intensity occurred in upper and then mid estuary sites, with lower estuary sites actually having lowest infection rates in most months. Thus, the disease impact appears to be heaviest near areas with opti mal physical conditions for oysters and less so in the higher salinities

PAGE 66

58 believed to be unfavorable to oysters. Sites with optimal conditions for oyster growth are likely to sustain older individuals over time. Paynter et al. (2010) noted a marked incre ase in dermo intensity and prevalence in oysters over six years of age. Oyster populations less than six years of age experienced 40% prevalence, while those older than six years experienced up to 90% prevalence. Because oyster reefs have greater longevi ty relative to mangrove prop roots and newly planted restoration substrates oyster reefs may support an older population of oysters The increased presence of d ermo at sites favorable to oyster s may u l tim at ely be a function of the age and survival of oys ters at any given site or habitat. Despite the significant differences detected between habitats and sites in Tampa Bay the means of infection intensity were low relative to lethal infection levels While lethal levels are difficult to precisely define biological functions appear to be impacted wh en infection intensity reaches three (moderate) and decline dramatically at level s four and five (Ford and Tripp, 1996) No mean monthly values for any individual station for any month exceeded a mean intensity of stage two Therefore, it is unlikely that d ermo serves as a significant impediment to the physiological function of oysters from any habitat found within Tampa Bay. H owever, the potential for rapid mortality of infected oysters at the high temperatures and salinities seen in Tampa Bay may be biasing this conclusion; i.e. the odds of finding high infection intensities are reduced because those oysters die quickly and are unlikely to be sampled leaving relatively more healthy oysters ( Wilson et al., 2005; Ford and Tripp, 1996). Most studies on C. virginica examining reproductive activity utilize the scheme of reproductive stages first characterized by Kennedy and Battle (1964) then standardized

PAGE 67

59 on a scale of 1 10 by Fisher et al. (1 996). This scale can actually be interpreted as a cyclic scale in places where oysters live longer than one year. The two ends of the scale, 0 and 10, represent conditions furthest from reproduction: 0 or neuter gonads where no gametogenesis has begun, a nd 10 where cytolysis of decaying gametes is nearly complete. The middle of the 10 point scale, 5, indicates that the animal is ripe and ready to spawn such that the lower the score the farther the oyster is from spawning ( Volety et al, 2009). This method was utilized in this study Most of the variability in reproductive stage observed was due to seasonal fluctuation, with minor variability due to site. Reproductive stage did not differ among habitats. I n all habitats there was a rapid increase in reproductive stage from March to April, corresponding to rising temperatures in spring although some sites experienced a slow increase in February Mean reproductive stage fell furthest and increases were most pronounced in the upper estuary, where temperatures were coldest in the winter and climbed most rapidly in spring. Changes in mean reproductive stages were least pronounced in the lower estuary, where temperatures were likely modified by tidal exchanges with the Gulf of Mexico. Fecundity in bivalves can be estimated by several different method s Early studies simply counted the number of eggs released when the females spawned (Galtsoff, 1964). Those data suggest 10 20 million eggs could be produced by a female in a single spawn. Another study which accounted for size of the oyster produced more variable estimates ranging from 10,000 to 66.4 million per spawn (Davis and Chanley, 1956), but also allowed each oyster to spawn over a two month period. T his method relie d on relatively ripe females which can be induced to spawn by manipulation of some

PAGE 68

60 environmental factor such as temperature, salinity, or light cycle. Unfortu n a tely, t his process can be very time consuming and only allow s for fecundity estimates in very ripe animals. Barber et al. (1988) use d histological method s to determine fecundity which is usually costly and labor intensive and comes with many caveats but do es provide fecundity estima tes regardless of developmental stage. The method adopted for this study involves the maceration of the gonadal tissue ( Cox and Mann, 1992) and is cruder than other techniques, but has the advantages of ease of use and the ability to estimate fecundity of female oysters regardless of reproductive stage. T he apparent fecundity observed in this study was much lower than that observed by Cox and Ma nn (1992) with a maximum of less than 1,000,000 eggs. However, when adjusted for size, these estimate s of fecundit y may not be exceptionally low (Thompson et al., 199 6 ). More important to the present study are the relative values observed since most of the observed variability was related to the seasonal cycle of reproductive development, with some variation related to site differences. Fecundity was generally lowest in winter, when temperature and reproductive stages were also low. Fecundity rose rap idly in spring, when temperatures and reproductive stage also were rising, and dipped in mid summer followed by a minor resurgence in late summer. As with reproductive stage, habitat had little influence on fecundity, and the majority of oysters within a site basically followed a similar pattern. Arnold et al. (2008) found that in Tampa Bay most o yster recruitment was limited to three or four months of any given year, and that the peak month varied from June to October. S imilar observations have been mad e in other Florida estuaries Wilson et al. (2005) showed that the duration and timing of settlement in the St. Lucie estuary and

PAGE 69

61 neighboring Indian River Lagoon could vary not only year to year but also between stations within a year. Similar station to station variability in recruitment of oysters in the Caloosahatchee River has been observed (Volety et al., 2009) and is presumably the result of less than ideal conditions for either larvae, juveniles or both. In Tampa Bay, in 2009, the highes t peak in recruitment occurred in all stations during either June or July. Some stations had other, minor peaks in recruitment. This pattern was played out in all habitats at all sites. T he variation between habitats (slightly lower recruit ment rates on restoration habitats) was both statistically and biologically insignificant; especially considering the pattern was not consistent from site to site. To summarize the monthly parameters observed, oysters collected from Tampa Bay sites were concluding their spawning season at the onset of the study in fall 2008. Measures of reproduction were declining concurrent with temperature. Oysters enter a resting stage durin g the winter, where no reproductive activity occurs and oyster store energy, as evidenced by rising condition indices. Reproductive measures increase in the spring with rising temperatures, followed by spawning in the warm summer months as evidenced by de clining condition and peaks in reproductive indices and recruitment. Those seasonal changes predominated over habitat and site to site variability. Oysters from alternate habitats recruit ed juvenile oysters, produce d mature individuals, and contribute d v iable gametes at the same magnitude as oyster reefs and with similar seasonality. As a result, the contributions of oysters from non reef habitats must be considered in any population level study of oysters in which alternate habitats occur. The relative contributions of each respective habitat to the overall gametic output and recruitment of the entire oyster population in Tampa Bay will be a function of the density

PAGE 70

62 at which they occur on a given habitat, and the extent of that habitat throughout the eco system. Single Event Parameters Oyster density, standardized to a square meter of surface area, was found to vary among habitats. On average, m angroves and seawalls had higher densit ies of oysters than oyster reef s although the former oysters were found to be smaller than those on oyster reef s However, t his difference among habitats was not consistent among sites. The overall pattern was driven by the very high densities observed on seawalls in the middle estuary and by relatively hi gh densities of oysters in mangrove habitat at dome sites. The abundances of oysters on reefs were lowest at the middle estuary shell and lower estuary dome site s While the differences were quite large, there was no consistent discernable pattern The density of oyster reefs measured in this study, mean value of 1 068 oysters m 2 was higher than those previously measured in Tampa Bay (Arnold et al., 2008) when the highest mean density of oysters measured was only 110 oysters m 2 Those oyster mon itoring sites were situated in the lower portion of the estuary, two of which were located closer to the estuary mouth than either of the lower estuary sites monitored in this study. One very likely reason is that oysters in lower Tampa Bay had been recen tly impacted by a severe red tide event during the 2005 2007 study ( Landsberg et al., 2009 ). Densities were also higher than those observed by Tolley et al. (2005) in sout h Florida or Arnold et al. (2008 ) in Florida east coast estuaries and are nearer the targeted living

PAGE 71

63 density for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program goals (Volety et al., 2009). Significant differences were detected in the mean shell heights of oysters collected from mang roves, reef, restoration, and seawall habitats but those differences were quantitatively small, ranging from 32.1 to 37.9 mm Largest mean oyster shell heights were found in reef and restoration habitats. The differences in shell height also varied betwe en sites. The general pattern was for oysters in mangrove and seawall habitats to be slightly smaller than reef and restoration sites. There was a consistent trend of increasing size from upper to mid dle and finally lower estuary, which consistently had t he largest oysters. Oyster reefs were consistently found to have the lowest densities within a given site when compared to mangrove, restoration, and seawall habitats. However, oyster reefs were also found to have a significantly higher mean shell heigh t than mangrove and seawall sites. To some extent there is an inverse relationship between the density of oysters and shell height of oysters at a given location, because there is a limit to the available settlement substrate. One factor contributing to this relationship may be the physical orientation of the substrate. Many smaller oysters were found living inside the interstitial spaces in mangrove and seawall substrates similar to those described at the ME RS S site. These oysters appear to be size l imited by the space in which they settled. Unlike oyster reefs, mangrove and seawall substrate s do not subside with time. Repeated cohort settlement of oysters to the interior portion o f mangrove and seawall habitats will only increase the number of the se size limited oysters, decreasing the mean shell height Alternately, oysters settling on the interior portion of oyster reef s will

PAGE 72

64 subside with time with the reef. Furthermore, o ysters dwelling on vertically oriented substrates, such as mangrove and seawalls may be limited in terms of the horizontal distance in which t o expand. At some maximum load, the weight of oyster growth will force some portion of that population to break away from a seawall, or break the actual prop root they reside on. Th e combination of these factors may explain the differences in size and density of oysters between habitat types. The main ecosystem benefit provided by oysters is their ability to improve water quality by removing particles from the water column, allowing increased light penetration and decreased eutrophication. While differences were detected in the size and density of oysters from different habitats, the rate at which those populations filter water will ultimately depend on the density of their biomass and not individual density or size. Using the power equation derived to predict individual tissue weight from shell height, the biomass of oyster soft tissues can be determined from each habitat, and are displayed in Table 13. Table 13. Oyster biomas s density of mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall habitats sampled from Tampa Bay, USA. Dry weight (DW) was calculated from the power function developed in this study comparing shell height (SH) to dry meat weight and is equal to DW = 0.0003 x SH 1.907 2. Biomass density was estimated from the mean number of individuals*m 2 on each type of habitat multiplied by the corresponding dry weight (DW) of t he individual mean shell height Habitat SH (mm) DW (g) Density (Oysters*m 2 ) Biomass (g*m 2 ) Mangrove 32.06 0.22 4 1780 398 Reef 37.88 0.307 1068 328 Restoration 37.72 0.30 5 1878 572 Seawall 33.38 0.241 2410 582

PAGE 73

65 These findings suggest that reef and restoration habitats throughout Tampa Bay have fewer but larger oysters per square meter while mangrove and seawall habitats have more dense but smaller oysters per square meter. Despite this inverse relationship, estimates of biomass do not indicate a standard carrying capacity in terms of biomass density across each type of habitat. It is worth nothing that estimates of biomass density are based on an individual mean shell height from each type of habitat, and may be explored further. The total number of taxa (>150) found in this study was much greater than the 42 taxa found on the reef community in Georgia (Bahr and Lanier, 1981), and less than the 248 species identified by Gorzelany (1986) from five rivers along the Gulf coast of Florida. However, Gorzelany identified the majority of organisms to the species level, and further identification of th e taxa in this study would likely increase the total species number. Many similar species were abundant in all three studies Those species included the southern ribbed mussel, Geukensia granosissima and the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica Other common taxa included the polychaetes of the family Syllidae, blister worms of the Polydora species complex, Xanthid crabs, and several amphipods Th o se taxa c ould be considered cosmopolitan in terms of oyster reefs in the s outheast, and were found i n the three alternate oyster habitats as well. Reef habitat observed in this study had a total mean abundance of 2 8 7 x 10 4 individuals m 2 which is similar to results from the Georgia study ( 3.80 x 10 4 individuals m 2 ; Bahr and Lanier 1981) and somewh at greater than the 1.81 x 10 4 individuals m 2 found in soft sediments from Tampa Bay (Grabe, 1998) The dominant taxa found in oysters from this study varied markedly from those found in soft sediments in the same region, providing further evidence for their role

PAGE 74

66 as essential fish habitat. The percent contribution of major taxonomic groups from reef habitat also closely resembled that measured by Gorzelany in the rivers north of Tampa Bay (Figure 21) Biodiversity was not found to vary significantly between habitats, suggesting that sim ilar communities exist with oysters regardless of where those oysters reside. Bahr and Lanier (1981) provide d the most comprehensive study of oyster asso ciated fauna standardized by surface area in the s outheast ern USA Densities of C. virginica in Tampa Bay were found to be largely similar to the 1 4.7 x 10 4 individuals m 2 in Bahr and Lanier (1981) ranging between 4 .10 x 10 3 and 1 2 5 x 10 4 individuals m 2 between all four hab itats. Other taxa found to be in agreement include Neanthes succinea, Streblospio benedicti, Parhyale hawaiensis x anthid crabs and most amphipods. However, t he densities of some taxa were found to be an order of magnitude higher in this study relative to those reported in Georgia by Bahr and Lanier (1981) For example the mean number of barnacles in this study ranged between 1 .53 x 10 3 individuals m 2 on oyster reefs to 1.47 x 10 4 ind ividuals m 2 on mangroves compared to 1 .25 x 10 3 individuals m 2 found in Georgia oyster reefs. Other taxa found to be an order of magnitude greater included Polydora websteri Marphysa sanguinea and Syllidae spp. Pea crabs ( Zaops ostreum ) were only found in reef dwelling oysters and were less abundant on reefs from Tampa Bay (3 individuals m 2 ) than found by Bahr and Lanier (3 and 24.5 individuals m 2 ).

PAGE 75

67 Figure 21. Percent composition of major taxonomic groups collected from reef habitat in the current study and from 5 major rivers on the Gulf Coast of Florida (adapted from Gorzelany, 1986). No distinct differences in the faunal community between habitats were de tected in either biodiversity or multivariate analysis of organism abundance. Significant differences were detected between station and strata. This suggests oyster habitat supports largely similar communities regardless of which habitat they reside on, and those communities will vary by location. Despite these differences, the major contributors to these differences were more dependent on the abundance of several dominant species, and not the presence or absence of particular species.

PAGE 76

68 Figure 22. MDS ordination plot (top) and corresponding p ercent similarity cluster dendrogram (bottom) of the mean organism abundance from each site (UE D, UE S, ME D, ME S, LE D, LE S)* habitat (MG, RF, RS, SW) combination labeled by strata.

PAGE 77

69 CONCLUSION S Oysters serve a valuable function within estuarine ecosystems (Bahr and Lanier 1981) and one objective of this study was to determine the role that each of four habitats ; mangrove, reef, restoration, and seawall ; play in the Tampa Bay ecosystem. During this study it was observed that for every linear meter of mangrove periphery, there was approximately 2 m 2 of oyster habitable area within the mangrove structure. It was also observed during areal abundance surveys that the mean intertidal range (width) of oyster growth on vertical structures, i.e. mangroves and sea walls, was 0.35m (Table 3) ; less than the previously estimated 0.5m Using the oyster densities per habitat from this study and the GIS calculated habitat areas, i.e. the 550 linear kilomet ers of seawall etc., a total number of oysters and a percent contribution per habitat are presented in Table 16. The t otal surface area coverage for restoration sites throughout Tampa Bay is difficult to estimate T hose substrates add additional surface area and oysters to the total although those contribution are likely to be small relative to mangrove and reef substrates. Using these calculated values the mangrove habitat encompasses the majority (69%) of the total potential oyster population in Tampa Bay. Mangroves offer highly complex structures, and the vertical and horizontal arrangement of prop roots could easily double the area available for colonization by oysters. These data also assume that mangroves

PAGE 78

70 Table 1 4 Estimated areas of suitable oyster substrate, mean oyster density, the calculated number of oysters, and percent contribution of oysters in Tampa Bay b y habitat type: mangrove, reef and seawall. Restoration substrate has been omitted due to the difficulty in estimating total ar eal coverage Habitat Estimated Area (m 2 ) Oyster Density (m 2 ) Potential Number of Oysters Percent Contribution Mangrove 7.92 x 10 5 1780 1.41 x 10 9 6 9% Reef 1.60 x 10 5 1068 1.71 x 10 8 8% Seawall 1.94 x 10 5 2410 4.68 x 10 8 23% Total 1.15 x 10 6 5258 1.41 x 10 9 100% are essentially linear shorelines, but in many areas this is not the case. In addition there are no estimate s for the spatial extent of oysters underneath the mangrove canopy on the sediment surface The addition of this information would increase the resolution of data on total oyster coverage in Tampa Bay. Results of this study suggest oysters recruit juveniles, produce mature individuals, and contribute viable gametes regardless of the substrat e on which the y settle. As a result, future population scale studies of oysters should consider these alternate substrates In Tampa Bay, alternate substrates contributed a far greater proportion of individuals than did oyster reef s Further measuremen t of the proportion of each habitat containing oysters would provide a more accurate estimate of the total number of oysters found throughout the bay. This would allow for more precise estim a tes of important parameters associated with ecosystem function such as filtration rates and clearance times, biomass production of oysters and associated fauna, fish prey availability, and pollution uptake.

PAGE 79

71 LITERATURE CITED Abbe, G.R., Albright, B.W., 2003. An improvement to the determination of meat condition index for the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin 1791). J. Shellfish Res. 22:747 752. Arnold, W.S., Parker, M.L., Stephenson, S.P., 2008. Oyster monitoring in the northern estuaries. Final report to the South Florida Water Management District, Grant Number CP040614. FWRI reports F2483 04 F. Austin, H., Haven, D.S., Moustafa, M.S., 1993. The relationship between trends in a condition index of the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica and environmental parameters in three Virginia estuaries. Estuaries 16:362 374. Bahr, L.M., Lanier, W.P., 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic coast: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS 81/15, 105 pp. Barber, B. J., Ford, S.E., Haskin, H.H., 1988. Effects of the parasite MSX ( Haplosporidium nelsoni ) on oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) energy metabolism. I. Condition index and relative fecundity. J. Shellfish Res. 7(1):25 31

PAGE 80

72 Beck, M.W. Heck, K.L. Jr. Able, K.W. Childers, D.L. Eggleston, D.B., Gillanders B.M. Halpern, B. Hays, C.G. Hoshino, K. Minello, T.J. Orth, R.J. Sheri dan, P.F. Weinstein M.P. 2001. The Identification, Conservation, and Management of Estuarine and Marine Nurseries for Fish and Invertebrates. BioScience 51(8):633 641. Bulleri F. 2005. Role of recruitment in causing differences between intertidal assemblages on seawalls and rocky shores Mar Ecol Prog Ser 287: 53 65 thioglycollate medium for diagnosis of Perkinsus marinus infection in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica Ann. Rev. Fish Diseases 4:201 217. Chu F. E., Volety, A.K., 1997. Disease processes of the parasite Perkinsus marinus in eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica: minimum dose for infection initiation, and interaction of temperature, salinity, and infective cell dose. Dis Aquat Org. 28:61 68. Coen, L.D., Luckenbach, M.W., Breitburg D.L., 1999 The role of oyster reefs as essential fish habitat: a review of current knowledge and some new perspectives. Am. Fish. Soc. Sym p 22: 438 454 Connell S D ., 2001. Urban structures as marine habitats: an experimental comparison of the composition and abundance of subtidal epibiota among pilings, pontoons and rocky reefs. Mar Environ Res 52:115 125 Cox, C., Mann, R., 1992. Temporal and spatial changes in fecundity of eastern oysters, Crassotrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) in the James River, Virginia. J. Shellfish Res. 11:49 54.

PAGE 81

73 Dame, R.F., 1979. The abundance, diversity and biomass of macrobenthos on North Inlet, South Carolina, intertidal oyster reefs. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 69:6 10. Davis, H.C., Chanley, P.E.,1956. Spawning and egg production of oysters and clams. Biol. Bull. 110(2):117 128. Fisher, W.S., Winstead, J.T., Oliver, L.M., Edmiston, H.L., Bailey, G.O., 1996. Physiologic variability of eastern oysters from Apalachicola Bay, Florida. J Shellfish Res. 15:543 553. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). mangrove_coastal_esi_arc [computer file]. 2003. St. Petersburg FL:, Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI), Center for Spatial Analysis Ford, S.E., Tripp, M.R., 1996 Diseases and defense mechanisms. Pages 581 660 in: V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell and A.F. Able (eds). The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica Maryland Sea Grant, College Park. 734 pp. Galtsoff, P.S., 1964. The American oyster Crassostrea virginica Gme lin. Fish. Bu ll. Fish. Wildl. Serv. 64:1 480 Glasby T.M., Connell S.D., 1999. Urban structures as marine habitats. Ambio 28:595 598 Gorzelany, J 1986. Oyster associated fauna: a data collection program for selected coastal estuaries in Hernando, Citrus, and Levy counties, Florida. Vol. 5. Report prepared by Mote Marine Laboratory for the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Grabe, S.A., 1998. Overview of Boca Ciega Bay Benthos: 1997. Tampa Bay Estuary Program Tech. Pub. #01 98

PAGE 82

74 Hayes, P F., Menzel, R.W., 1981. The reproductive cycle of early setting Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and its implications for population recruitment. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 160:80 88. Ingle, R.M., 1952. Spawning and setting of oysters in relation to seasonal environmental changes. Bull. Marine Sci. Gulf and Caribbean l:111 135. Kennedy, A.V., Battle, H.I., 1964. Cyclic changes in the gonad of the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Can. J. Zool. 42:305 321. Kennedy, V.S., 1996. Reproductive Processes and Early Development. In V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell and A.F. Eble, (eds). The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica (pp 371 421). College Park, Maryland. University of Maryland Sea Grant Publications. Kenny, P. D., Miche ner, W.K., Allen, D.M., 1990. Spatial and temporal patterns of oyster settlement in a high salinity estuary. J. Shellfish Res. 9:329 339. Landsberg, J.H., Flewelling, L.J., Naar, J., 2009. Karenia brevis red tides, brevetoxins in the food web, and impacts on natural resources; decadal advancements. Harmful Algae 8:598 607. Lawrence, D.R., Scott, G.I., 1982. The determination and use of condition index of oysters. Estuaries 5:23 27. Loosanoff V L ., 1968. Maturation of gonads of oyster Crassostrea virginic a at different geographical areas subjected to relatively low temperatures. Veliger 11(3) :153 162.

PAGE 83

75 Loosanoff, V.L., Nomejko, C. A. 1951. Existence of physiologically different races of oysters, Crassostrea virginica Biol. Bull. 1951 101: 151 156 Loosanoff, V.L., Davis, H.C., 1952. Temperature requirements for maturation of gonads of northern oysters. Biol. Bull. 103:80 96. Lucas, A., Beninger, G., 1985. The use of physiological condition indices in marine bivalve aquaculture. Aquaculture 44:187 200. MacKenzie, C.L., Jr., Burrell, V.G., Jr., Rosenfield, A., Hobart, W.L., (eds.), 1997. The history, present condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries of North and Central America and Europe, Volume 1, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. U.S. Departmen t of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report 127, 234 pp. Mackin, J.G., 1962. Oyster disease caused by Dermocystidium marinum and other microorganisms in Louisiana. Publication of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 7:132 229. Marzinelli, E. M., Zagal, C. J. Chapman M. G Underwood A. J. 2009 "Do modified habitats have direct or indirect effects on epifauna?" Ecology 90: 2948 2955. M cBride, R.S., MacDonald, T.C., Matheson, R.E., Jr., Rydene, D.A., Hood, P.B., 2001. Nursery habitats for ladyfi sh, Elops saurus along salinity gradients in two Florida estuaries. Fish. Bull. 99:443 458. Mercado Silva, N., 2005. Condition Index of The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) in Sapelo Island Georgia: Effects of Site, Position on Bed and Pea Crab Parasitism. J. Shellfish Res. 24(1):121 126.

PAGE 84

76 Michener, W.K., Kenny, P.D., 1991. Spatial and temporal patterns of Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) recruitment: relations hip to scale and substratum. J of Experim Mar Bio a nd Eco 154:97 121. Michener, W.K., Brunt, J.W., Jefferson, W.H., 1995. New techniques for monitoring American oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) recruitment in the intertidal zone. ICES Mar Sci Symp 1 99:267 273. Moreira, J., Chapman, M.G., and Underwood A. J., 2006. Seawalls do not sustain viable populations of limpets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 322: 179 188. Motoda, S., 1959. Devices of simple plankton apparatus. Memoirs of the Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University 7:73 94. eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica and their potential applications, in coastal Georgia. Aquaculture 136:231 242. Assessment. Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Publication # 03 06 Paynter, K.T., Politano, V., Lane, H.A., Allen, S.M., Meritt, D., 2010. Growth rates and prevalence of Perkin sus marinus in restored oyster populations in M aryland. J. Shellfish Res. 29(2) : 309 317 Ponti, M ., Abbiati, M., Ceccherelli, V. U. 2002. Drilling platforms as artificial reefs: distribution Ad riatic Sea). ICES J Mar Sci. 59: 316 e323 Rainer, J. S., Mann, R., 1992. A comparison of methods for calculating condition index in Eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) J. Shellfish Res. 11:55 58.

PAGE 85

77 Ray, S.M., 1952. A culture technique for the diagnosis of infections with Dermocystidium marinum Mackin, Owen, and Collier in oysters. Science 116 :360 361. Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 117 pp. Sheng, Y.P., Yassuda, E.A., 1995. Application of a three dimensional circulation model to Tampa Bay to support water quality monitoring. Final Report, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Technical Publication #04 95 57 pp. Soniat, T.M., 1985. Changes in levels of infection of oysters by Perkinsus marinus with special reference to interaction of temperature and salinity upon parasitism. Northeast Gulf Sci. 7:171 174. Schoener, A., Tufts, D.F., 1987. Changes in oyster condition ind ex with El Nio Southern Oscillation events at 46 N in an eastern Pacific bay. J. Geophys. Res. 92(C13) : 14,429 14,435. T hompson, R.J., Newell, R.I.E., Kennedy, V.S., Mann, R., 1996. Reproductive processes and early development. In: V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell Eble, A.F. (eds.), The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland pp. 335 370. Tolley, S.G., Volety, A.K., Savarese, M., 2005. Influence of salinity on the habitat use of oyster reefs in three southwest Florida estuaries. J. Shellfish Res. 24:127 138. Walne, P.R., 1969. The seasonal variation of meat and glycogen content of seven p opulations of oysters Ostrea edulis L. and a review of the literature. Fish. Invest., Lond (2), 26(3): 35p.

PAGE 86

78 Wargo, R.N., Ford, S.E., 1993. The effect of shell infestation by Polydora sp. and infection by Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) on the tissue condition of oysters, Crassostrea virginica. Estuaries Coasts. 16(2):229 234. Weisberg, R. H. Zheng L. 2006. Circulation of Tampa Bay driven by buoyancy, tides, and winds, as simulated using a finite volume coastal ocean model J. Geophys. Res 111 C01005 Wells, H.W., 1961. The fauna of oyster beds, with special reference to the salinity factor. Ecol Monograph 31:239 266. White, M. E., Powell E.N., Ray, S. M. 1988 Effect of parasitism by the pyramidellid gastropod Boonea impressa on the net productivity of oysters ( Crassostera v irgini ca ). Estuar. C oast. Shelf Sci. 26: 359 377 Wilson, C., Scotto, L., Scarpa, J., Volety, A., Laramore, S., Haunert, D., 2005. Survey of water quality, oyster reproduction and oyster health statu s in the St. Lucie Estuary. J. Shellfish Res. 24:157 165. Volet y, A.K., Savarese, M., Tolley, S.G., Arnold, W. S., Sime, P ., Goodman, P., Chamberlain, R. H., Doering, P.H., 2009. Eastern oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ) as an indicator for restoration of Everglades Ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 9:s120 s136 Zimmerman, R., Minello, T.J., Baumer, T., Castiglione, M., 1989. Oyster reef as habitat for estuarine macrofauna. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS SEFC 249. 16 p.

PAGE 87

79 APPENDI CIES

PAGE 88

Table A1. Station coordinates for each sampling location in Tampa Bay. Site Habitat Station LE-D MG MG-LE-D 27 44.3 N 82 41.6 W LE-D RF RF-LE-D 27 44.2 N 82 41.6 W LE-D SW SW-LE-D 27 43.4 N 82 44.3 W LE-D SW SW-LE-D 27 43.4 N 82 44.3 W LE-S MG MG-LE-S 27 41.1 N 82 43.0 W LE-S RF RF-LE-S 27 41.1 N 82 43.0 W LE-S SW SW-LE-S 27 41.2 N 82 43.1 W LE-S SW SW-LE-S 27 41.1 N 82 43.0 W ME-D MG MG-ME-D 27 47.7 N 82 37.9 W ME-D RF RF-ME-D 27 47.8 N 82 37.9 W ME-D SW SW-ME-D 27 48.0 N 82 38.0 W ME-D SW SW-ME-D 27 48.0 N 82 38.0 W ME-S MG MG-ME-S 27 49.0 N 82 23.9 W ME-S RF RF-ME-S 27 49.0 N 82 23.9 W ME-S SW SW-ME-S 27 48.4 N 82 24.7 W ME-S SW SW-ME-S 27 48.9 N 82 24.1 W UE-D MG MG-UE-D 27 53.8 N 82 26.1 W UE-D RF RF-UE-D 27 53.8 N 82 26.1 W UE-D SW SW-UE-D 27 53.7 N 82 29.2 W UE-D SW SW-UE-D 27 53.7 N 82 29.2 W UE-S MG MG-UE-S 27 53.6 N 82 32.5 W UE-S RF RF-UE-S 27 53.6 N 82 32.5 W UE-S SW SW-UE-S 27 53.6 N 82 32.5 W UE-S SW SW-UE-S 27 53.6 N 82 32.5 W Latitude Longitude Appendix A: Station Coordinates 80

PAGE 89

seawall habitats in Tampa Bay. Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 SD # m -2 SD # m -2 SD # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 13.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annelid A 1.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 22.1 35.3 0.0 0.0 Annelid B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 254.4 623.1 0.0 0.0 Annelid C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 Annelid D 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annelid E 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 146.7 359.3 0.0 0.0 Annelid F 77.4 158.8 80.6 135.1 26.7 65.3 17.5 43.0 Annelid G 10.6 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annelid H 0.0 0.0 26.7 65.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annelid I 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annelid J 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 389.3 610.3 Annelid K 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 98.0 0.0 0.0 Annelid L 6.7 16.3 62.6 96.9 62.1 128.1 8.8 21.5 Annelid M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.2 106.1 0.0 0.0 Annelid N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 12.0 Annelid O 46.1 94.8 1389.5 1166.6 348.6 590.2 173.0 398.5 Annelid P 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Amphicteis floridus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 267.9 276.7 98.9 206.1 552.9 817.8 238.6 379.7 Chone sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 21.1 0.0 0.0 Dorvilleidae sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 98.0 14.7 36.0 Eucinidae spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 Eunicidae sp. 0.0 0.0 6.6 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feather Duster 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 219.9 244.2 62.7 99.6 597.9 811.4 66.0 63.3 Hydroides dianthus 32.9 52.4 6.7 16.3 51.7 78.1 106.7 261.3 Manayukia sp. 20.0 49.0 13.3 32.7 3.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 Marphysa sanguinea 152.0 372.2 9.8 24.0 6.7 16.3 2.5 6.0 Neanthes succinea 393.3 170.4 532.8 502.2 1502.3 2946.6 204.4 190.6 Nerididae 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 Orbiniidae A 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 96.7 208.8 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae B 240.0 587.9 15.0 32.1 360.0 881.8 0.0 0.0 Polydora websteri 1036.2 1788.6 1816.2 2396.9 12444.3 19889.1 1057.2 1512.1 Sabillidae A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 6.0 Sabillidae B 0.8 2.0 8.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 65.3 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 32.0 0.0 0.0 Sapella sp. 66.7 163.3 273.3 669.5 0.0 0.0 46.7 114.3 Serpula vermicularis 1677.3 4106.1 17.2 42.0 181.4 444.3 352.9 864.5 Spirorbidae spp. 286.7 702.2 33.3 81.6 86.7 212.3 3046.7 7462.8 Sthenelais boa 0.0 0.0 4.9 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Streblospio spp. 4.2 8.0 4.9 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Syllidae spp. 1231.4 1093.6 638.0 680.9 1679.5 873.2 5490.7 6032.7 Terebellidae A 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 21.5 10.0 24.5 Terebellidae B 260.0 636.9 80.0 196.0 86.7 212.3 2.2 5.4 Terebellidae C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 Arthropoda Acari sp. 10.0 16.7 8.3 16.0 326.7 800.2 183.3 439.3 Habitat Specific Community Composition Appendix B: Mangrove Reef Restoration Seawall Table B1. Mean abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from mangrove, reef, restoration, and 81

PAGE 90

Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 SD # m -2 SD # m -2 SD # m -2 SD Mangrove Reef Restoration Seawall Arachnida Trombidiidae 0.0 0.0 15.6 29.5 3.3 8.2 40.0 98.0 Entognatha Anurida maritima 45.0 56.1 136.0 192.3 142.1 323.0 1162.9 2341.8 Isotominae sp. 4.9 12.0 3.3 8.2 10.0 16.7 52.5 111.8 Insecta Chironominae 0.0 0.0 46.7 114.3 2.5 6.0 32.1 47.7 Coleoptera sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 Amphipod A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 3.3 8.2 5.0 12.2 30.0 64.2 46.1 112.8 Amphipod D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 Amphipod E 2.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.7 138.8 Elasmopus pectenicrus 16.5 26.2 0.0 0.0 291.6 407.2 0.0 0.0 Laticorophium baconi 3542.6 8262.9 28.3 47.5 706.4 1538.7 2948.7 4986.4 Melita longisetosa 858.6 980.7 294.2 253.2 353.2 190.6 262.6 336.3 Melita sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.9 252.7 0.0 0.0 Microprotopus raneyi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 Paracaprella sp. 33.3 81.6 0.0 0.0 20.0 33.5 26.7 56.1 Parhyale hawaiensis 1414.2 1773.1 2279.9 4188.9 841.1 804.2 1133.3 2044.9 Podocerus brasiliensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 73.5 Stenothoidae sp. 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 40.8 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 Brachyura sp. 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Penaid 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Petrolisthes armatus 335.5 379.2 358.2 762.6 672.6 858.2 714.3 928.4 Sesarma cinereum 0.8 2.0 51.5 126.1 0.0 0.0 10.4 21.1 Xanthidae spp. 205.3 126.8 1145.6 1175.2 2149.9 2160.3 521.9 459.1 Zaops ostreum 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Isopoda Cyathura polita 0.0 0.0 20.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ligia exotica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.4 157.0 Paradella spp. 31.8 50.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 256.5 345.6 Sphaeroma quadridentata 60.2 107.9 4606.7 11284.0 17.5 43.0 19.6 48.0 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leptocheliidae spp. 1112.9 1052.7 1821.0 3124.1 4976.0 7936.3 1840.1 3326.8 Sinelobus stanfordi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 73.5 Teleotanais gerlachi 61.5 107.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 14717.9 21982.3 1532.3 1925.8 3083.4 4164.8 12574.6 23705.7 Ostracoda Ostracod 0.0 0.0 39.5 96.7 82.6 166.5 9.8 24.0 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 151.1 357.3 68.9 162.3 43.3 106.1 124.2 256.2 Tanystylidae B 3.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.3 179.6 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 242.2 586.8 15.0 32.1 10.0 16.7 266.7 653.2 Osteichthyes Fish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 Cnidaria Anemone 620.8 706.4 285.7 359.4 1505.4 1742.1 1900.4 1698.5 Hydroid 693.0 1608.9 78.4 187.2 0.0 0.0 963.2 2080.5 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Martesia sp. 15.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sphenia antillensis 476.5 678.5 166.4 257.1 278.5 361.5 768.0 1034.0 Amygdalum papyrium 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 43.0 Brachidontes exustus 114.4 219.5 66.7 115.0 469.6 629.4 595.6 763.5 Geukensia granosissima 9160.5 18223.0 3763.9 7185.4 7799.9 16992.9 25032.3 45887.1 Ischadium recurvum 4.2 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lithophaga bisulcata 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 Perna viridis 36.1 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 393.7 646.5 82

PAGE 91

Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 SD # m -2 SD # m -2 SD # m -2 SD Mangrove Reef Restoration Seawall Anomia simplex 100.0 244.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 8928.2 3823.1 4099.5 3990.0 8870.0 6011.0 12458.1 15921.2 Ostreola equestris 160.0 391.9 0.0 0.0 121.7 199.6 313.3 767.5 Isognomon radiatus 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasaea adansoni 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.1 37.5 46.1 2592.2 6333.3 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 26.5 34.8 8.3 16.0 52.7 82.5 44.5 69.5 Parastarte triquetra 0.0 0.0 4.9 12.0 8.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 Tricolia affinis 7.7 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 175.4 279.8 Cerithidae costata 3.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae sp. 0.0 0.0 173.3 424.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 26.6 Boonea impressa 71.1 100.4 249.5 606.2 140.0 92.2 48.2 118.2 Odostomia sp. 2.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Astyris lunata 103.4 245.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Melongena corona 0.0 0.0 9.3 14.4 14.6 20.6 7.4 18.0 Nassarius sp. 7.4 10.6 0.0 0.0 22.5 48.1 0.0 0.0 Nassarius vibex 0.0 0.0 8.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 Urosalpinx perrugata 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 6.0 19.6 48.0 Assiminea succinea 4.2 8.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 22.4 2.5 6.0 Bittiolum varium 46.1 112.8 56.7 129.3 301.8 505.8 30.7 75.2 Cerith sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 Cerithium muscarum 0.0 0.0 54.2 96.2 35.1 85.9 0.0 0.0 Crepidula aculeata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 Crepidula spp. 909.0 2149.2 479.4 713.3 2384.3 2915.1 237.3 489.8 Littorina angulifera 4.4 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 12.2 Vitrinellidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. A 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. B 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 26.7 65.3 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae B 0.0 0.0 9.8 24.0 4.9 12.0 78.4 192.1 Olividae 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Onchidella spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 820.0 2008.6 Gastropod A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 Gastropod B 0.0 0.0 13.3 32.7 7.4 18.0 3.3 8.2 Gastropod C 4.9 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 21.5 Joculator fusiformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Snails 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 98.0 Pollia tincus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 16.1 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0.0 0.0 6.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 4.9 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean A 49.3 84.7 32.9 45.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 Nemertean B 355.7 471.7 49.9 98.8 160.7 312.6 207.9 311.5 Nemertean C 25.0 35.6 33.3 81.6 50.0 122.5 86.7 139.5 Nemertean D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 825.7 723.9 310.0 272.7 907.6 735.9 1285.9 1672.3 Porifera Cliona sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 6.0 Protozoa Foraminifera 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 6.0 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 6.7 16.3 980.0 2400.5 53.3 130.6 670.0 1554.6 Mean Total 51692.7 28698.0 55976.7 82637.5 83

PAGE 92

Upper Estuary Dome (UE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid A 10 0 0 0 2.5 5.0 Annelid B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid F 35 0 0 0 8.8 17.5 Annelid G 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Annelid H 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid J 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid K 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid M 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid N 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid O 0 180 0 0 45.0 90.0 Annelid P 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Amphicteis floridus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 75 0 0 0 18.8 37.5 Chone sp. 0 0 10 0 2.5 5.0 Dorvilleidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eucinidae spp. 0 0 10 0 2.5 5.0 Eunicidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Feather Duster 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 130 100 820 170 305.0 344.5 Hydroides dianthus 0 0 70 0 17.5 35.0 Manayukia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Marphysa sanguinea 0 0 40 0 10.0 20.0 Neanthes succinea 290 1440 7480 480 2422.5 3409.0 Nerididae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae A 0 0 60 0 15.0 30.0 Orbiniidae B 0 10 0 0 2.5 5.0 Polydora websteri 670 6390 52020 2910 15497.5 24461.8 Table C1. Abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Upper Estuary-Dome study site in Tampa Bay. Appendix C: Site Specific Community Composition 84

PAGE 93

Upper Estuary Dome (UE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Sabillidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae B 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Sabillidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae D 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Sapella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Serpula vermicularis 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Spirorbidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sthenelais boa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Streblospio spp. 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Syllidae spp. 705 1080 460 730 743.8 255.1 Terebellidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arthropoda Acari sp. 0 10 0 0 2.5 5.0 Arachnida Trombidiidae 0 20 0 0 5.0 10.0 Entognatha Anurida maritima 50 510 0 0 140.0 247.8 Isotominae sp. 0 20 0 0 5.0 10.0 Insecta Chironominae 0 280 0 20 75.0 137.0 Coleoptera sp. 0 0 10 0 2.5 5.0 Amphipod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0 20 0 0 5.0 10.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 0 30 160 0 47.5 76.3 Amphipod D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Elasmopus pectenicrus 0 0 100 0 25.0 50.0 Laticorophium baconi 10 10 100 0 30.0 46.9 Melita longisetosa 1755 280 340 210 646.3 741.1 Melita sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Microprotopus raneyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paracaprella sp. 0 0 40 20 15.0 19.1 Parhyale hawaiensis 3225 1060 230 720 1308.8 1322.1 Podocerus brasiliensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Stenothoidae sp. 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachyura sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Penaid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Petrolisthes armatus 425 1910 760 440 883.8 701.4 Sesarma cinereum 5 0 0 10 3.8 4.8 Xanthidae spp. 180 2520 2600 1230 1632.5 1154.0 Zaops ostreum 0 20 0 0 5.0 10.0 Isopoda Cyathura polita 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 85

PAGE 94

Upper Estuary Dome (UE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Ligia exotica 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paradella spp. 125 0 0 0 31.3 62.5 Sphaeroma quadridentata 275 0 0 0 68.8 137.5 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Leptocheliidae spp. 35 80 70 0 46.3 36.4 Sinelobus stanfordi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Teleotanais gerlachi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 44210 5210 11400 13500 18580.0 17445.3 Ostracoda Ostracod 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tanystylidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 0 10 40 0 12.5 18.9 Osteichthyes Fish 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cnidaria Anemone 1575 430 4630 520 1788.8 1964.2 Hydroid 0 10 0 0 2.5 5.0 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0 0 10 0 2.5 5.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Martesia sp. 10 0 0 0 2.5 5.0 Sphenia antillensis 1745 680 990 480 973.8 555.3 Amygdalum papyrium 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Brachidontes exustus 40 120 240 120 130.0 82.5 Geukensia granosissima 3030 790 210 2630 1665.0 1375.6 Ischadium recurvum 25 0 0 0 6.3 12.5 Lithophaga bisulcata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Perna viridis 70 0 0 0 17.5 35.0 Anomia simplex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 11440 11890 9980 4170 9370.0 3561.2 Ostreola equestris 0 0 10 0 2.5 5.0 Isognomon radiatus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lasaea adansoni 0 10 0 0 2.5 5.0 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 80 10 140 120 87.5 57.4 Parastarte triquetra 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tricolia affinis 20 0 0 0 5.0 10.0 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae costata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Boonea impressa 0 10 100 0 27.5 48.6 Odostomia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Astyris lunata 15 0 0 0 3.8 7.5 86

PAGE 95

Upper Estuary Dome (UE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Melongena corona 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Nassarius sp. 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Nassarius vibex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx perrugata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assiminea succinea 5 0 0 0 1.3 2.5 Bittiolum varium 0 20 600 0 155.0 296.8 Cerith sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithium muscarum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula aculeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula spp. 0 510 4660 200 1342.5 2221.6 Littorina angulifera 0 0 0 30 7.5 15.0 Vitrinellidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae A 0 0 10 0 2.5 5.0 Rissoidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Olividae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Onchidella spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Joculator fusiformis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Snails 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Pollia tincus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean A 90 0 0 0 22.5 45.0 Nemertean B 150 20 140 90 100.0 59.4 Nemertean C 10 0 0 0 2.5 5.0 Nemertean D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 895 680 90 680 586.3 346.0 Porifera Cliona sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Protozoa Foraminifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Total/ Mean Total 71445 36410 98690 29480 59006.3 87

PAGE 96

Upper Estuary Shell (UE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid B 0 0 1526 0 381.6 763.2 Annelid C 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Annelid D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid F 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid G 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid H 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid J 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid K 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid L 0 184 53 0 59.2 86.9 Annelid M 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid N 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid O 237 2066 316 0 654.6 950.3 Annelid P 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphicteis floridus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 276 79 2000 579 733.6 869.0 Chone sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Dorvilleidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eucinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eunicidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Feather Duster 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 13 250 211 66 134.9 113.4 Hydroides dianthus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Manayukia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Marphysa sanguinea 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Neanthes succinea 184 276 316 250 256.6 55.3 Nerididae 0 26 0 0 6.6 13.2 Orbiniidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Table C2. Abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Upper Estuary-Shell study site in Tampa Bay. APPENDIX C (continued): Site Specific Community Composition 88

PAGE 97

Upper Estuary Shell (UE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Polydora websteri 39 1289 3053 158 1134.9 1397.2 Sabillidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae B 0 53 0 0 13.2 26.3 Sabillidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sapella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Serpula vermicularis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Spirorbidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sthenelais boa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Streblospio spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Syllidae spp. 526 289 1737 1053 901.3 641.9 Terebellidae A 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Terebellidae B 0 0 0 13 3.3 6.6 Terebellidae C 0 0 0 13 3.3 6.6 Arthropoda Acari sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arachnida Trombidiidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Entognatha Anurida maritima 13 39 53 158 65.8 63.6 Isotominae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Insecta Chironominae 0 0 0 53 13.2 26.3 Coleoptera sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 0 0 0 276 69.1 138.2 Amphipod D 0 0 0 13 3.3 6.6 Amphipod E 13 0 0 0 3.3 6.6 Elasmopus pectenicrus 0 0 789 0 197.4 394.7 Laticorophium baconi 0 0 0 26 6.6 13.2 Melita longisetosa 66 66 316 645 273.0 274.4 Melita sp. 0 0 632 0 157.9 315.8 Microprotopus raneyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paracaprella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Parhyale hawaiensis 408 13 1789 263 618.4 797.5 Podocerus brasiliensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Stenothoidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Brachyura sp. 0 26 0 0 6.6 13.2 Penaid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Petrolisthes armatus 26 53 105 697 220.4 319.7 Sesarma cinereum 0 0 0 53 13.2 26.3 Xanthidae spp. 342 2684 5947 908 2470.4 2523.6 Zaops ostreum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 89

PAGE 98

Upper Estuary Shell (UE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Isopoda Cyathura polita 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ligia exotica 0 0 0 66 16.4 32.9 Paradella spp. 13 0 0 39 13.2 18.6 Sphaeroma quadridentata 0 0 105 0 26.3 52.6 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Leptocheliidae spp. 474 342 105 145 266.4 172.7 Sinelobus stanfordi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Teleotanais gerlachi 276 0 0 0 69.1 138.2 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 1053 1987 947 329 1078.9 684.3 Ostracoda Ostracod 0 237 0 0 59.2 118.4 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 26 13 0 105 36.2 47.3 Tanystylidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 13 0 0 0 3.3 6.6 Osteichthyes Fish 0 0 0 13 3.3 6.6 Cnidaria Anemone 0 0 0 803 200.7 401.3 Hydroid 3974 461 0 316 1187.5 1867.4 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Martesia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sphenia antillensis 53 53 211 224 134.9 95.1 Amygdalum papyrium 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachidontes exustus 0 0 53 105 39.5 50.4 Geukensia granosissima 53 0 0 316 92.1 151.2 Ischadium recurvum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lithophaga bisulcata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Perna viridis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Anomia simplex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 6408 4289 19158 8947 9700.7 6586.1 Ostreola equestris 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Isognomon radiatus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lasaea adansoni 0 0 0 13 3.3 6.6 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Parastarte triquetra 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tricolia affinis 26 0 0 0 6.6 13.2 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0 0 0 421 105.3 210.5 Cerithidae costata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Boonea impressa 26 1487 211 289 503.3 664.9 Odostomia sp. 13 0 0 0 3.3 6.6 90

PAGE 99

Upper Estuary Shell (UE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Astyris lunata 605 0 0 0 151.3 302.6 Melongena corona 0 26 0 0 6.6 13.2 Nassarius sp. 13 0 0 0 3.3 6.6 Nassarius vibex 0 53 0 0 13.2 26.3 Urosalpinx perrugata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assiminea succinea 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Bittiolum varium 276 0 0 184 115.1 138.2 Cerith sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithium muscarum 0 237 0 0 59.2 118.4 Crepidula aculeata 0 0 0 13 3.3 6.6 Crepidula spp. 0 526 7053 1224 2200.7 3273.2 Littorina angulifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Vitrinellidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. B 0 13 0 0 3.3 6.6 Rissoidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Olividae 0 26 0 0 6.6 13.2 Onchidella spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Joculator fusiformis 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Juvenile Snails 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Pollia tincus 0 0 0 39 9.9 19.7 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean B 211 250 0 92 138.2 114.0 Nemertean C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 0 118 632 500 312.5 301.3 Porifera Cliona sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Protozoa Foraminifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Total/ Mean Total 15658 17513 47579 19408 25039.5 91

PAGE 100

Middle Estuary Dome (ME-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid F 29 324 0 0 88.2 157.5 Annelid G 59 0 0 0 14.7 29.4 Annelid H 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid J 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid K 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid L 0 191 0 0 47.8 95.6 Annelid M 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid N 0 0 0 29 7.4 14.7 Annelid O 0 1691 29 985 676.5 816.8 Annelid P 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphicteis floridus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 765 515 265 853 599.3 265.1 Chone sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Dorvilleidae sp. 0 0 0 88 22.1 44.1 Eucinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eunicidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Feather Duster 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 147 0 59 15 55.1 66.2 Hydroides dianthus 118 0 0 0 29.4 58.8 Manayukia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Marphysa sanguinea 912 59 0 15 246.3 444.3 Neanthes succinea 353 662 324 338 419.1 162.2 Nerididae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Table C3 Abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Middle Estuary-Dome study site in Tampa Bay. APPENDIX C (continued): Site Specific Community Composition 92

PAGE 101

Middle Estuary Dome (ME-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Polydora websteri 882 2353 11868 3103 4551.5 4963.9 Sabillidae A 0 0 0 15 3.7 7.4 Sabillidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sapella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Serpula vermicularis 10059 103 1088 2118 3341.9 4552.9 Spirorbidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sthenelais boa 0 29 0 0 7.4 14.7 Streblospio spp. 0 29 0 0 7.4 14.7 Syllidae spp. 3412 59 1324 3397 2047.8 1649.4 Terebellidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arthropoda Acari sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arachnida Trombidiidae 0 74 0 0 18.4 36.8 Entognatha Anurida maritima 147 15 0 279 110.3 130.7 Isotominae sp. 29 0 0 15 11.0 14.1 Insecta Chironominae 0 0 15 0 3.7 7.4 Coleoptera sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Elasmopus pectenicrus 59 0 0 0 14.7 29.4 Laticorophium baconi 706 0 3838 5206 2437.5 2487.7 Melita longisetosa 971 676 515 721 720.6 188.7 Melita sp. 0 0 118 0 29.4 58.8 Microprotopus raneyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paracaprella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Parhyale hawaiensis 147 0 88 221 114.0 93.3 Podocerus brasiliensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Stenothoidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachyura sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Penaid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Petrolisthes armatus 324 0 0 15 84.6 159.5 Sesarma cinereum 0 309 0 0 77.2 154.4 Xanthidae spp. 265 15 250 103 158.1 120.3 Zaops ostreum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 93

PAGE 102

Middle Estuary Dome (ME-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Isopoda Cyathura polita 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ligia exotica 0 0 0 15 3.7 7.4 Paradella spp. 0 0 0 279 69.9 139.7 Sphaeroma quadridentata 0 0 0 118 29.4 58.8 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Leptocheliidae spp. 2853 2544 4118 8324 4459.6 2664.4 Sinelobus stanfordi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Teleotanais gerlachi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 118 691 1750 1029 897.1 681.9 Ostracoda Ostracod 0 0 15 59 18.4 27.8 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tanystylidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Osteichthyes Fish 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cnidaria Anemone 1235 44 0 29 327.2 605.7 Hydroid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Martesia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sphenia antillensis 265 0 0 15 69.9 130.1 Amygdalum papyrium 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachidontes exustus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Geukensia granosissima 46235 18265 42441 115794 55683.8 41944.7 Ischadium recurvum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lithophaga bisulcata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Perna viridis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Anomia simplex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 10000 1000 2515 2632 4036.8 4044.4 Ostreola equestris 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Isognomon radiatus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lasaea adansoni 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 59 0 176 147 95.6 81.0 Parastarte triquetra 0 29 0 0 7.4 14.7 Tricolia affinis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae costata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Boonea impressa 0 0 59 0 14.7 29.4 Odostomia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 94

PAGE 103

Middle Estuary Dome (ME-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Astyris lunata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Melongena corona 0 29 15 44 22.1 19.0 Nassarius sp. 0 0 15 0 3.7 7.4 Nassarius vibex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx perrugata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0 0 15 118 33.1 56.8 Assiminea succinea 0 0 29 15 11.0 14.1 Bittiolum varium 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerith sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithium muscarum 0 88 0 0 22.1 44.1 Crepidula aculeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula spp. 5294 0 353 0 1411.8 2593.6 Littorina angulifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Vitrinellidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae B 0 59 29 471 139.7 221.9 Olividae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Onchidella spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod B 0 0 44 0 11.0 22.1 Gastropod C 29 0 0 0 7.4 14.7 Joculator fusiformis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Snails 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Pollia tincus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 29 0 0 0 7.4 14.7 Nemertean A 206 118 0 0 80.9 100.1 Nemertean B 118 29 15 103 66.2 51.6 Nemertean C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 1441 88 176 44 437.5 671.4 Porifera Cliona sp. 0 0 0 15 3.7 7.4 Protozoa Foraminifera 0 0 0 15 3.7 7.4 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Total/ Mean Total 87265 30088 71544 146779 83919.1 95

PAGE 104

Middle Estuary Shell (ME-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid A 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Annelid B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid F 0 0 0 105 26.3 52.6 Annelid G 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid H 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid J 0 0 0 1316 328.9 657.9 Annelid K 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid L 0 0 0 53 13.2 26.3 Annelid M 0 0 263 0 65.8 131.6 Annelid N 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid O 0 0 1526 53 394.7 754.8 Annelid P 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphicteis floridus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 132 0 1053 0 296.1 508.2 Chone sp. 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Dorvilleidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eucinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eunicidae sp. 0 39 0 0 9.9 19.7 Feather Duster 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 289 26 2158 105 644.7 1014.8 Hydroides dianthus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Manayukia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Marphysa sanguinea 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Neanthes succinea 553 579 895 158 546.1 301.9 Nerididae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Table C4 Abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Middle Estuary-Shell study site in Tampa Bay. APPENDIX C (continued): Site Specific Community Composition 96

PAGE 105

Middle Estuary Shell (ME-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Polydora websteri 4605 145 7105 53 2977.0 3476.9 Sabillidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sapella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Serpula vermicularis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Spirorbidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sthenelais boa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Streblospio spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Syllidae spp. 1105 0 1737 4684 1881.6 2001.6 Terebellidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arthropoda Acari sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arachnida Trombidiidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Entognatha Anurida maritima 0 92 0 0 23.0 46.1 Isotominae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Insecta Chironominae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Coleoptera sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Elasmopus pectenicrus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Laticorophium baconi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Melita longisetosa 0 263 368 0 157.9 187.3 Melita sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Microprotopus raneyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paracaprella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Parhyale hawaiensis 4105 526 579 316 1381.6 1819.3 Podocerus brasiliensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Stenothoidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachyura sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Penaid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Petrolisthes armatus 158 26 2211 474 717.1 1013.2 Sesarma cinereum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Xanthidae spp. 105 895 2842 211 1013.2 1268.5 Zaops ostreum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 97

PAGE 106

Middle Estuary Shell (ME-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Isopoda Cyathura polita 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ligia exotica 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paradella spp. 53 0 0 0 13.2 26.3 Sphaeroma quadridentata 26 0 0 0 6.6 13.2 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0 13 0 0 3.3 6.6 Leptocheliidae spp. 316 0 263 53 157.9 154.9 Sinelobus stanfordi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Teleotanais gerlachi 53 0 0 0 13.2 26.3 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 41947 66 1263 59789 25766.4 29890.5 Ostracoda Ostracod 0 0 421 0 105.3 210.5 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tanystylidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Osteichthyes Fish 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cnidaria Anemone 895 0 842 3211 1236.8 1378.2 Hydroid 184 0 0 263 111.8 133.1 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Martesia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sphenia antillensis 737 66 211 2789 950.7 1259.3 Amygdalum papyrium 0 0 0 105 26.3 52.6 Brachidontes exustus 26 0 105 368 125.0 168.3 Geukensia granosissima 3605 329 2368 29474 8944.1 13752.9 Ischadium recurvum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lithophaga bisulcata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Perna viridis 26 0 0 842 217.1 416.9 Anomia simplex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 14421 1697 10947 44579 17911.2 18571.8 Ostreola equestris 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Isognomon radiatus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lasaea adansoni 0 0 105 0 26.3 52.6 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Parastarte triquetra 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Tricolia affinis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0 0 0 632 157.9 315.8 Cerithidae costata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Boonea impressa 0 0 211 0 52.6 105.3 Odostomia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 98

PAGE 107

Middle Estuary Shell (ME-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Astyris lunata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Melongena corona 0 0 53 0 13.2 26.3 Nassarius sp. 26 0 0 0 6.6 13.2 Nassarius vibex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx perrugata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assiminea succinea 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bittiolum varium 0 0 1211 0 302.6 605.3 Cerith sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithium muscarum 0 0 211 0 52.6 105.3 Crepidula aculeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Littorina angulifera 26 0 0 0 6.6 13.2 Vitrinellidae 0 0 105 0 26.3 52.6 Caecum sp. A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Olividae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Onchidella spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod C 0 0 0 53 13.2 26.3 Joculator fusiformis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Snails 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Pollia tincus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean B 1316 0 789 842 736.8 545.3 Nemertean C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 658 13 1947 4632 1812.5 2044.2 Porifera Cliona sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Protozoa Foraminifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Total/ Mean Total 75368 4776 41947 155158 69312.5 99

PAGE 108

Lower Estuary Dome (LE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid F 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid G 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid H 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid J 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Annelid K 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid L 40 0 0 0 10.0 20.0 Annelid M 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Annelid N 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid O 0 3080 20 0 775.0 1536.7 Annelid P 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphicteis floridus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 360 0 0 0 90.0 180.0 Chone sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Dorvilleidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eucinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eunicidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Feather Duster 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 60 0 140 40 60.0 58.9 Hydroides dianthus 0 40 200 640 220.0 293.0 Manayukia sp. 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Marphysa sanguinea 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Neanthes succinea 340 200 0 0 135.0 166.0 Nerididae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Orbiniidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Table C5 Abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Lower Estuary-Dome study site in Tampa Bay. APPENDIX C (continued): Site Specific Community Composition 100

PAGE 109

Lower Estuary Dome (LE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Polydora websteri 20 40 60 120 60.0 43.2 Sabillidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sapella sp. 0 0 0 280 70.0 140.0 Serpula vermicularis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Spirorbidae spp. 0 0 520 18280 4700.0 9056.7 Sthenelais boa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Streblospio spp. 20 0 0 0 5.0 10.0 Syllidae spp. 600 640 1660 17080 4995.0 8071.6 Terebellidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Terebellidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arthropoda Acari sp. 20 0 1960 1080 765.0 943.0 Arachnida Trombidiidae 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Entognatha Anurida maritima 60 160 800 5920 1735.0 2809.2 Isotominae sp. 0 0 20 280 75.0 137.0 Insecta Chironominae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Coleoptera sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod A 0 0 40 0 10.0 20.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 20 0 20 0 10.0 11.5 Amphipod D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod E 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Elasmopus pectenicrus 0 0 20 0 5.0 10.0 Laticorophium baconi 140 40 300 240 180.0 114.3 Melita longisetosa 80 480 20 0 145.0 225.9 Melita sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Microprotopus raneyi 0 0 0 80 20.0 40.0 Paracaprella sp. 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Parhyale hawaiensis 520 10760 1920 5280 4620.0 4554.7 Podocerus brasiliensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Stenothoidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachyura sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Penaid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Petrolisthes armatus 40 0 0 120 40.0 56.6 Sesarma cinereum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Xanthidae spp. 20 120 660 520 330.0 308.3 Zaops ostreum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 101

PAGE 110

Lower Estuary Dome (LE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Isopoda Cyathura polita 0 80 0 0 20.0 40.0 Ligia exotica 0 0 0 400 100.0 200.0 Paradella spp. 0 0 40 320 90.0 154.5 Sphaeroma quadridentata 60 27640 0 0 6925.0 13810.0 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Leptocheliidae spp. 1560 80 4700 2520 2215.0 1937.0 Sinelobus stanfordi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Teleotanais gerlachi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 260 240 2860 360 930.0 1287.7 Ostracoda Ostracod 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 0 0 260 640 225.0 302.6 Tanystylidae B 20 0 0 440 115.0 216.9 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 0 0 20 1600 405.0 796.7 Osteichthyes Fish 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cnidaria Anemone 20 320 1400 2560 1075.0 1153.8 Hydroid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Martesia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sphenia antillensis 60 40 220 880 300.0 395.0 Amygdalum papyrium 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachidontes exustus 60 0 820 1960 710.0 913.1 Geukensia granosissima 2000 2960 1300 1960 2055.0 683.4 Ischadium recurvum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lithophaga bisulcata 0 0 0 80 20.0 40.0 Perna viridis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Anomia simplex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 3700 3320 3980 8440 4860.0 2401.9 Ostreola equestris 0 0 240 1880 530.0 907.1 Isognomon radiatus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lasaea adansoni 0 0 40 15520 3890.0 7753.4 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 20 0 0 0 5.0 10.0 Parastarte triquetra 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tricolia affinis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae costata 20 0 0 0 5.0 10.0 Cerithidae sp. 0 1040 0 0 260.0 520.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0 0 0 40 10.0 20.0 Boonea impressa 200 0 20 0 55.0 97.1 Odostomia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 102

PAGE 111

Lower Estuary Dome (LE-D) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Astyris lunata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Melongena corona 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nassarius sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nassarius vibex 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx perrugata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assiminea succinea 20 0 0 0 5.0 10.0 Bittiolum varium 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerith sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithium muscarum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula aculeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Littorina angulifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Vitrinellidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Olividae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Onchidella spp. 0 0 0 4920 1230.0 2460.0 Gastropod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod B 0 80 0 0 20.0 40.0 Gastropod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Joculator fusiformis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Snails 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Pollia tincus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean A 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Nemertean B 140 0 20 40 50.0 62.2 Nemertean C 60 0 300 320 170.0 163.7 Nemertean D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 120 440 1160 1000 680.0 484.4 Porifera Cliona sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Protozoa Foraminifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 0 0 320 3840 1040.0 1872.8 Total/ Mean Total 10660 51840 26220 99680 47100.0 103

PAGE 112

Lower Estuary Shell (LE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Annelida Leech 80 0 0 0 20.0 40.0 Annelid A 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Annelid B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid D 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Annelid E 40 0 880 0 230.0 433.7 Annelid F 400 160 160 0 180.0 164.9 Annelid G 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid H 0 160 0 0 40.0 80.0 Annelid I 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Annelid J 0 0 0 1020 255.0 510.0 Annelid K 0 0 240 0 60.0 120.0 Annelid L 0 0 320 0 80.0 160.0 Annelid M 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid N 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Annelid O 40 1320 200 0 390.0 626.0 Annelid P 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphicteis floridus 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Polychaeta Capitella capitata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chone sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Dorvilleidae sp. 0 0 240 0 60.0 120.0 Eucinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Eunicidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Feather Duster 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Nereiphylla fragilis 680 0 200 0 220.0 320.8 Hydroides dianthus 80 0 40 0 30.0 38.3 Manayukia sp. 120 80 0 0 50.0 60.0 Marphysa sanguinea 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Neanthes succinea 640 40 0 0 170.0 313.9 Nerididae 0 0 0 20 5.0 10.0 Orbiniidae A 0 80 520 0 150.0 249.5 Orbiniidae B 1440 80 2160 0 920.0 1058.3 Table C6 Abundance (# individuals m -2 ) of taxa collected from each habitat (mangrove (MG), reef (RF), restoration (RS), and seawall (SW)) within the Lower Estuary-Shell study site in Tampa Bay. APPENDIX C (continued): Site Specific Community Composition 104

PAGE 113

Lower Estuary Shell (LE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Polydora websteri 0 680 560 0 310.0 361.3 Sabillidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sabillidae C 0 0 160 0 40.0 80.0 Sabillidae D 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Sapella sp. 400 1640 0 0 510.0 776.6 Serpula vermicularis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Spirorbidae spp. 1720 200 0 0 480.0 832.0 Sthenelais boa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Streblospio spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Syllidae spp. 1040 1760 3160 6000 2990.0 2191.2 Terebellidae A 40 0 0 60 25.0 30.0 Terebellidae B 1560 480 520 0 640.0 657.3 Terebellidae C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Arthropoda Acari sp. 40 40 0 20 25.0 19.1 Arachnida Trombidiidae 0 0 0 240 60.0 120.0 Entognatha Anurida maritima 0 0 0 620 155.0 310.0 Isotominae sp. 0 0 40 20 15.0 19.1 Insecta Chironominae 0 0 0 120 30.0 60.0 Coleoptera sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Malacostraca Amphipod B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipoda Amphipod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod D 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Amphipod E 0 0 0 340 85.0 170.0 Elasmopus pectenicrus 40 0 840 0 220.0 413.8 Laticorophium baconi 20400 120 0 12220 8185.0 9958.7 Melita longisetosa 2280 0 560 0 710.0 1079.4 Melita sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Microprotopus raneyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Paracaprella sp. 200 0 0 140 85.0 101.2 Parhyale hawaiensis 80 1320 440 0 460.0 604.4 Podocerus brasiliensis 0 0 0 180 45.0 90.0 Stenothoidae sp. 0 0 0 100 25.0 50.0 Decapoda Alpheidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachyura sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Penaid 40 0 0 0 10.0 20.0 Petrolisthes armatus 1040 160 960 2540 1175.0 993.0 Sesarma cinereum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Xanthidae spp. 320 640 600 160 430.0 229.5 Zaops ostreum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 105

PAGE 114

Lower Estuary Shell (LE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Isopoda Cyathura polita 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Ligia exotica 0 0 0 20 5.0 10.0 Paradella spp. 0 0 0 900 225.0 450.0 Sphaeroma quadridentata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tanaidacea Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Leptocheliidae spp. 1440 7880 20600 0 7480.0 9393.7 Sinelobus stanfordi 0 0 0 180 45.0 90.0 Teleotanais gerlachi 40 0 0 0 10.0 20.0 Maxillopoda Barnacle spp. 720 1000 280 440 610.0 317.3 Ostracoda Ostracod 0 0 40 0 10.0 20.0 Pycnogonida Tanystylidae A 880 400 0 0 320.0 418.3 Tanystylidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chordata Clavelina oblonga 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Ascidiacea Tunicate 1440 80 0 0 380.0 707.7 Osteichthyes Fish 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cnidaria Anemone 0 920 2160 4280 1840.0 1851.8 Hydroid 0 0 0 5200 1300.0 2600.0 Mollusca Anadara transversa 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bivalvia Corbula contracta 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Martesia sp. 80 0 0 0 20.0 40.0 Sphenia antillensis 0 160 40 220 105.0 102.5 Amygdalum papyrium 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Brachidontes exustus 560 280 1600 1020 865.0 577.2 Geukensia granosissima 40 240 480 20 195.0 214.4 Ischadium recurvum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lithophaga bisulcata 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Perna viridis 120 0 0 1520 410.0 742.2 Anomia simplex 600 0 0 0 150.0 300.0 Crassostrea virginica 7600 2400 6640 5980 5655.0 2269.6 Ostreola equestris 960 0 480 0 360.0 459.6 Isognomon radiatus 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Lasaea adansoni 0 0 80 20 25.0 37.9 Mytilopsis leucophaeata 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Parastarte triquetra 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tricolia affinis 0 0 0 20 5.0 10.0 Gastropoda Pedipes mirabilis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae costata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Cerithidae sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Siphonaria pectinata 0 0 0 60 15.0 30.0 Boonea impressa 200 0 240 0 110.0 128.1 Odostomia sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 106

PAGE 115

Lower Estuary Shell (LE-S) MG RF RS SW Mean Taxonomic Group Taxa # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 # m -2 SD Astyris lunata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Melongena corona 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nassarius sp. 0 0 120 0 30.0 60.0 Nassarius vibex 0 0 0 20 5.0 10.0 Urosalpinx perrugata 40 0 0 0 10.0 20.0 Urosalpinx tampaensis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assiminea succinea 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Bittiolum varium 0 320 0 0 80.0 160.0 Cerith sp. 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Cerithium muscarum 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula aculeata 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Crepidula spp. 160 1840 2240 0 1060.0 1145.2 Littorina angulifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Vitrinellidae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Caecum sp. A 0 80 0 0 20.0 40.0 Caecum sp. B 0 0 160 0 40.0 80.0 Rissoidae A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Rissoidae B 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Olividae 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Onchidella spp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Gastropod A 0 0 80 0 20.0 40.0 Gastropod B 0 0 0 20 5.0 10.0 Gastropod C 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Joculator fusiformis 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Snails 0 0 0 240 60.0 120.0 Pollia tincus 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Polyplacophora Chiton squamosus 0 40 0 0 10.0 20.0 Nermertea Micrura leidyi 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Nemertean A 0 40 0 20 15.0 19.1 Nemertean B 200 0 0 80 70.0 94.5 Nemertean C 80 200 0 200 120.0 98.0 Nemertean D 0 0 0 20 5.0 10.0 Platyhelminthes Flatworm 1840 520 1440 860 1165.0 588.9 Porifera Cliona sp. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Protozoa Foraminifera 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Sipuncula Themiste sp. 40 5880 0 180 1525.0 2904.4 Total/ Mean Total 49760 31560 49880 45320 44130.0 107