4.6 Article

Reconstructing pre-colonial oyster demographics in the Chesapeake Bay, USA

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 217-222

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2009.08.004

关键词

Eastern oyster; Crassostrea virginica; Oyster reef; demographics; restoration; benthic-pelagic coupling

资金

  1. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Program [NA66FU0487, NA07FU0539, NA17FU2888]
  2. NOAA Office of Sea [NA56RGO141]
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [CB983649-01-0]
  4. Commonwealth of Virginia
  5. Virginia Institute of Marine Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent estimates of growth and mortality rates in extant Chesapeake Bay, USA oyster (Crassostrea virginica) populations are used to quantify changes in both population abundance (dN/dT) and shell accretion (dS/dT) associated with modern population demographics. The demographics of oyster populations that would be required to maintain reef accretion rates commensurate with sea level rise over geological time frames are examined using estimates of oyster longevity in pre-colonial (pre-1600) times combined with parallel estimates of pre-disease endemic mortality. The analysis demonstrates that modern populations, with their disease related, age-truncated demographics, are generally not capable of maintaining and building biogenic reefs through accretion. Estimates of filtration rates associated with Chesapeake Bay oyster populations prior to 1600 considerably underestimate actual benthic-pelagic coupling during that period. Pristine oyster populations would have supported water column turnover rates on the order of minutes to hours. Thus, the spatial footprint of oyster reefs was limited by available productivity in the estuary. Accretion rate calculations for pristine (pre-1600) oyster reefs describe the intimate relationship between benthic-pelagic coupling and the presence or absence of oyster reefs and the associated communities. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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