4.5 Article

Essential Fish Habitat and Wetland Restoration Success: A Tier III Approach to the Biochemical Condition of Common Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus in Common Reed Phragmites australis- and Smooth Cordgrass Spartina alterniflora-Dominated Salt Marshes

期刊

ESTUARIES AND COASTS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 1011-1022

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12237-009-9185-5

关键词

Essential fish habitat; F. heteroclitus; Salt marshes; Biochemical condition

资金

  1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, [X7-97280601]
  2. Institute of Sustainability Studies, Montclair State University [ISS 2009-0001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A tier III, essential fish habitat analysis was used to evaluate the biochemical condition of common mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus residing in two isolated tidal salt marshes, one a relatively undisturbed polyhaline site dominated by Spartina alterniflora and the other a meso-oligohaline site dominated by an invasive variety of Phragmites australis. Stable isotopes signatures of C, N, and S in whole tissue samples of F. heteroclitus were used to compare the trophic spectrum for this species in each marsh as a function of the dominant macrophytes present with additional contributions from phytoplankton and benthic microalgae. Allometry of wet mass and its components, water mass, lean protein mass and lipid mass in individual fish exhibited hyperallometric patterns; and average lipid mass fell within the range reported for most fundulids, including F. heteroclitus. Significant differences were also detected in the allocation of lipid classes to energy reserves in the form of triacylglycerols (TAG) and free fatty acids. These reserves, especially TAG, are critical for reproduction, migration, and overwintering survival in many taxa and were significantly lower in fish collected in the P. australis-dominated marsh. Relative to the relatively undisturbed Spartina-dominated site, we tentatively conclude that the P. australis-invaded marsh was an inferior habitat for F. heteroclitus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据