Presentation on theme: "Benjamin W. Stone 1 Peter Kingsley-Smith 1, Bowdoin Lusk 2, Barry Truitt 2, Joy Brown 3, Mark Faherty 4 & Gus Lorber 5 1 South Carolina Department of Natural."— Presentation transcript:
Benjamin W. Stone 1 Peter Kingsley-Smith 1, Bowdoin Lusk 2, Barry Truitt 2, Joy Brown 3, Mark Faherty 4 & Gus Lorber 5 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Marine Resources Research Institute 2 The Nature Conservancy Virginia Coast Reserve 3 The Nature Conservancy South Carolina Chapter 4 Massachusetts Audubon / Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary 5 Allied Concrete Co.
Background Increasing pressure on coastal habitats Multiple drivers of oyster reef habitat loss Importance of ecological services Decreasing availability and high price of oyster shell Use of novel materials as substrate Suitability and potential success of reef restoration and enhancement sites Application of site evaluation approaches
Massachusetts Audubon and Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Deployed June 2009 ~500 blocks divided among 9 replicate castle arrays Density: Oysters m -2 Size: Mean shell height (mm) Winter oyster mortality Sites are open to harvesting
Virginia Coastal Reserve 3 sites established in June-July 2008 (~500 blocks) – November 2008 shown top right; October 2010 shown bottom right 2 additional sites established in June 2009 (~500 blocks) 1 site established in March-April 2010 on a larger scale (bottom left) and castles added to 2 existing sites (~1488 blocks)
South Carolina Oyster Castles Deployed at 3 sites on Jeremy Island in July 2009 using volunteers Eight arrays of 13 oyster castles Monitored quarterly from Dec 2009 until Nov 2010 Castles constructed in Winyah Bay
Sampling Method Bottom Middle Top North South East West Photographed region Elevation and Orientation Photographic analysis
Analysis Data from SC sites sampled in December 2009 Oyster size data: oyster shell height (mm) Oyster density data: number of oysters m -2 Count no. of live oysters in each photograph (sample area) Determine sample area (m 2) to calculate oysters m -2 Data tested for normality - assumptions of ANOVA models Investigated main effects of site, elevation and orientation and their interactions Non-significant terms removed and reduced models re-run Split analysis into the three sites-Casino, ICW, Skrine
Effect of elevation on oyster survival One-way ANOVA Significant at ICW & Skrine sites; not significant at Casino Tukeys 95% C.I. post-hoc analysis ICW: Top > Bottom = Middle Skrine: Top = Middle > Bottom
One-way ANOVA Skrine only: significant Tukeys 95% C.I. South = West > East North not significantly different from other orientations Effect of orientation on oyster survival
Oyster size analyses Significance effects of: Site Replicate (castle) Elevation Orientation Elevation*Orientation Analysis ongoing Casino Mean=35.9 mm Skrine Mean=25.47 mm ICW Mean=25.7 mm
Conclusions Castles have utility as small-scale evaluation tools and larger scale restoration substrate. Elevation significantly affects early post-settlement oyster survival. Higher predation rates on lower elevations? Orientation affected survival only at one site and patterns were not intuitive. Small-scale differences in oyster growth rates. Success of restoration sites can be highly site specific.
Acknowledgements Amanda Fornal 1 Ryan Joyce 2 Kristin Schulte 1 Eric Krueger 3 Kristine Hartvigsen 3 Mary Conley 3 Melissa Spotts 3 Neil Jordan 3 Pam Marfizo 3 Robert Newton 3 Ryan Olson 3 Sarah Hartman 3 Shari Wibert 3 Jim Yergin John Kooper Carl Kooper Alec Adams Ashley Ammons David Mikell Jeanna Crockett Vicki Bullock Andrew Kazilieras Caroline Hetchell Kelly Courtney South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 1 College of Charleston 2 The Nature Conservancy 3
Thank you for your attention. Benjamin W. Stone Wildlife Biologist Shellfish Research Section Marine Resources Research Institute South Carolina Department of Natural Resources email@example.com