Cumulative Habitat Impacts of Nearshore Engineering

Meadows, Guy; Mackey, Scudder D.; Goforth, Reuben R.; Mickelson, David M.; Edil, Tuncer B.; Fuller, Jonathan A.; Guy, Donald E.; Meadows, Lorelle A.; Brown, Elizabeth; Carman, Stephanie M.; Liebenthal, Dale L.

doi:10.1016/s0380-1330(05)70292-6

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wave-swept shores support many organisms that usually are thought of as stream-dwellers, such as heptageniid mayflies, stoneflies, elmid beetles, pleurocerid snails, and filamentous green and red algae (Brinkhurst 1974;Barton and Hynes 1978;Brittain and Lillehammer 1978;Dall et al 1984;Meadows et al 2005). This group of animals is especially conspicuous at sites where wave energy is high, such as the exposed shores of the Laurentian Great Lakes.…”

Section: Support Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, by analogy with Jenny's (1941) analysis of state factors for soil development, we can think of the ecological character and function of shore zones as being determined chiefly by six interdependent classes of factors (cf. Meadows et al 2005): inputs of physical energy to the shore zone; the geological or engineered structure of the shore zone and its environs; the hydrology of the shore zone; inputs of nutrients; the biota of the shore zone; and the climate to which the shore zone is exposed. We are not suggesting that these factors completely determine the character of every freshwater shore zone, but taken together they capture most of the variation in freshwater shore zones.…”

Section: Corridorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freshwater shore zones are among the most ecologically valuable parts of the planet, but have been heavily damaged by human activities. Because the management and rehabilitation of freshwater shore zones could be improved by better use of ecological knowledge, we summarize here what is known about their ecological functioning. Shore zones are complexes of habitats that support high biodiversity, which is enhanced by high physical complexity and connectivity. Shore zones dissipate large amounts of physical energy, can receive and process extraordinarily high inputs of autochthonous and allochthonous organic matter, and are sites of intensive nutrient cycling. Interactions between organic matter inputs (including wood), physical energy, and the biota are especially important. In general, the ecological character of shore zone ecosystems is set by inputs of physical energy, geologic (or anthropogenic) structure, the hydrologic regime, nutrient inputs, the biota, and climate. Humans have affected freshwater shore zones by laterally compressing and stabilizing the shore zone, changing hydrologic regimes, shortening and simplifying shorelines, hardening shorelines, tidying shore zones, increasing inputs of physical energy that impinge on shore zones, pollution, recreational activities, resource extraction, introducing alien species, changing climate, and intensive development in the shore zone. Systems to guide management and restoration by quantifying ecological services provided by shore zones and balancing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) values are relatively recent and imperfect. We close by identifying leading challenges for shore zone ecology and management.

show abstract

Section: Support Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Corridorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessing stress-response relationships is further complicated by accommodating seasonal and annual changes in nearshore habitat components such as fish assemblages and aquatic macrophytes (Leslie and Timmins 1993;Trial et al 2001). Other direct site-scale effects on nearshore substrate may stem from unrelated updrift conditions, which may arise in larger lake systems (Meadows et al 2005;Goforth and Carman 2009). Despite the challenges, through the comparison of neighboring armored and natural shorelines, we found that shoreline protection affected a variety of nearshore habitat components in the Upper Winnebago Pool Lakes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…This has been addressed by comparing sites among different lakes (Christensen et al 1996;Jennings et al 1999;Radomski and Goeman 2001), and by comparing developed and undeveloped sites in general terms (Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992;Leslie and Timmins 1993;Lougheed et al 2001), which limit interpretation of results. Also, models may be inherent to a lake type, in that impacts to large, deepwater lake systems (Brazner and Magnuson 1994;Meadows et al 2005;Goforth and Carman 2009) may differ from shallow lakes. Other studies have focused on specific habitat components, such as aquatic macrophytes (Radomski and Goeman 2001), nearshore cover (Christensen et al 1996), substrate (Jennings et al 1999), and fish (Hook et al 2001), and variations in assessment methodologies and scale present uncertainty in integrating these to characterize ecosystem response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Riprap on Wetland Shorelines, Upper Winnebago Pool Lakes, Wisconsin

Gabriel

Bodensteiner

2011

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Isolation of causative factors has proved challenging in characterizing the physical, chemical, and biological effects of shoreline hardening on the nearshore environment because of logistical challenges in identifying comparable sites. Extensive shoreline hardening and interspersion with unaltered shores in the large, shallow lakes in central Wisconsin provide an opportunity to surmount this. We compared the effects of shoreline protection on wave climate, bottom topography and substrate, water quality, and plant and animal assemblages at five adjacent pairs of natural and armored (riprapped) shorelines. Armored shorelines were characterized by coarser, more compacted substrates with lower organic content; cooler temperatures with higher dissolved oxygen; and greater water clarity. Differences in physical and chemical properties likely influenced plant growth forms and fish feeding guild differences between riprapped and natural sites. For example, floating-leaved plants were more abundant and fish were nearly twice as abundant and were represented by larger individuals at natural versus armored shorelines. Substrate characteristics may account for the differences in water quality and plant and animal associations observed in this study. As shoreline property owners continue to install riprap as protection against erosion, we expect the nearshore environment and associated biological communities to increasingly reflect this practice.

show abstract

“…Beaches account for approximately 20% of the Laurentian Great Lakes shoreline (Wei et al, 2004), and provide important reproductive and nursery habitats for fishes (Heufelder et al, 1982;Wei et al, 2004). Groynes, jetties and breakwaters have extensively modified these habitats; leading to the loss of nearshore sand deposits and reduced size of beaches (Meadows et al, 2005). However, compared to coastal wetlands and other habitats, beach fish assemblages and the abiotic and biotic factors influencing their composition have been rarely investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lake Erie beaches: diel variation in fish assemblage structure and implications for monitoring

Reid

Mandrak

2008

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of temporal variation in nearshore Laurentian Great Lakes fish assemblages is important for understanding species-habitat associations, how abiotic and biotic influences vary temporally, and when sampling should occur. Using spring and fall seining data from Lake Erie beaches, we compared day and night fish assemblages and tested for differences among sampling periods. Beaches were utilized by a diverse collection of Lake Erie basin fishes (one-third of known species). During all sampling periods, catches were dominated by cyprinid species (53-91%), and by invertivores and planktivorous fishes. Diel differences were detected in abundance, species richness and assemblage structure. Multivariate analyses (canonical analysis of principal coordinates) indicated that season had a larger influence on fish assemblage structure than diel period. Given observed temporal variation in assemblage structure, studies of Laurentian Great Lakes beach fishes should be restricted to a single time period (e.g. day-time spring sampling), or adopt sampling designs that permit diel period and season to be included as factors in analyses. Second, the large seasonal variation in assemblage composition combined with higher night species richness indicates that night sampling during both spring and fall would be the most efficient and comprehensive approach for beach fish inventory.

show abstract

Cumulative Habitat Impacts of Nearshore Engineering

Abstract: ABSTRACT. A multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional research team evaluated a broad range of physi

Cited by 19 publications

References 29 publications

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

Impacts of Riprap on Wetland Shorelines, Upper Winnebago Pool Lakes, Wisconsin

Lake Erie beaches: diel variation in fish assemblage structure and implications for monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About