Water Quality Improvements in Liverpool Docks: The Role of Filter Feeders in Algal and Nutrient Dynamics

Wilkinson, Stephen B.; Zheng, Weizhong; Allen, John H.; Fielding, Nicola J.; Wanstall, Vanessa C.; Russell, G.; Hawkins, Stephen J.

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0485.1996.tb00501.x

Cited by 32 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Caulacanthus ustulatus (Rhodophyta), a species not recorded in the region before 1990, occurred in moderate abundance on natural rock but not at all on riprap (Zuccarello et al 2002;Murray et al 2005). The invasive bryozoans Bugula neritina (Linnaeus) and Watersipora subtorquata (d'Orbigny) occurred uncommonly only on natural rock, while Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck occurred infrequently in both habitats.…”

Section: # Of Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Urban marine ecology in southern California: the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky intertidal habitat

Pister

2009

Mar Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing human populations along marine coastlines has lead to increasing urbanization of the marine environment. Despite decades of investigations on terrestrial ecosystems, the eVect of urbanization on marine life is not well understood. Riprap is the rocky rubble used to build jetties, breakwaters, and armored shorelines. Roughly 30% of the southern California shoreline supports some form of riprap, while 29% of the shoreline is natural rocky substrate. Astonishingly few studies have investigated this anthropogenic rocky habitat even though it rivals a natural habitat in area on a regional scale along a coastline that has been extensively studied. In this study, I compared the diversity and community structure of exposed rocky intertidal communities on four riprap and four natural sites in southern California. I ask the following questions: (1) does diversity or community composition diVer between intertidal communities on riprap and natural rocky habitats in southern California, (2) if so, which organisms contribute to those diVerences, (3) which physical factors are contributing to these diVerences, and (4) do riprap habitats support higher abundances of invasive species than natural habitats? On average, riprap and natural rocky habitats in wave exposed environments in southern California did not diVer from each other in diversity or community composition when considering the entire assemblage. However, when only mobile species were considered, they occurred in greater diversity on natural shores. These diVerences appear to be driven by wave exposure. The presence of invasive species was negligible in both natural and riprap habitats.

show abstract

Section: # Of Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It may also provide shelter for a variety of species as juveniles (Binns and Remmick 1994). Finally, these organisms almost certainly inXuence the characteristics of the water column (Wilkinson et al 1996).…”

Section: # Of Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban marine ecology in southern California: the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky intertidal habitat

Pister

2009

Mar Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, some species (such as mussels or tube-building polychaetes) which characteristically colonize structures in some places in high abundances can significantly reduce the original porosity of the structures, with consequences for its functioning (e.g. Wilkinson et al, 1996). Knowledge of the environmental and social context in which LCSs are placed is fundamental to an effective design and management of coastal defence structures.…”

Section: Impacts At Regional Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It may also be possible to identify design options that maximise some of the byproducts of the structures to meet specific secondary management end points. For examples, it may be possible and desirable to maximize areas that provide nursery habitat for key fished species (see Martin et al, this issue), maximize the growth of filter feeders to improve water quality and transparency (Wilkinson et al, 1996), or maximize habitat for marine wildlife that are the focus of conservation, recreation or education (see Moschella et al, this issue). The use and design of LCS will vary based on these different objectives.…”

Section: Advice For a Sustainable Long-term Management Of Lcssmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ecological perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures

Airoldi

Abbiati

Beck

et al. 2005

Coastal Engineering

342

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal areas play a crucial role in the economical, social and political development of most countries; they support diverse and productive coastal ecosystems that provide valuable goods and services.Globally flooding and coastal erosion represent serious threats along many coastlines, and will become more serious as a consequence of human-induced changes and accelerated sea-level rise. Over the past indicate that the construction of coastal defence structures will affect coastal ecosystems. The consequences can be seen on a local scale, as disruption of surrounding soft-bottom environments and introduction of new artificial hard-bottom habitats, with consequent changes to the native assemblages of the areas. Proliferation of coastal defence structures can also have critical impacts on regional species diversity, removing isolating barriers, favouring the spread of non-native species and increasing habitat heterogeneity. Knowledge of the environmental context in which coastal defence structures are placed is fundamental to an effective management of these structures as, whilst there are some general consequences of such construction, many effects are site specific. Advice is provided to meet specific management goals, which include mitigating specific impacts on the environment, such as minimising changes to surrounding sediments, spread of exotic species or growth of nuisance species, and/or enhancing specific natural resources, for example enhancing fish recruitment or promoting diverse assemblages for ecoturism. The DELOS project points out that the downstream effects of defence structures on coastal processes and regional-scale impacts on biodiversity necessitate planning and management at a regional (large coastline) scale. To effectively understand and manage coastal defences, environmental management goals must be clearly stated and incorporated into the planning, construction, and monitoring stages.

show abstract

“…Studies of coastal embayments, large shallow rivers, and estuaries have implicated bivalves as the cause of significant alterations to the abundance of suspended material in nearbed layers or in the entire water body (Cloern 1982;Nakamura et al 1988;Wilkinson et al 1996;Welker and Walz 1998;Strayer et al 1999). In streams (including smaller, unregulated rivers), where turbulent mixing and downstream advection are organizing physical features, the magnitude of filter-feeder influence on local and downstream conditions may be comparatively small.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of filter‐feeding benthic macroinvertebrates on the transport and deposition of particulate organic matter and diatoms in two streams

Monaghan

Thomas

Minshall

et al. 2001

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transport and deposition of particulate organic matter (POM) in streams has received much attention in recent years. As with many ecosystem processes, determining the relative importance of physical and biological mechanisms for POM removal (e.g., sedimentation and filter-feeding) remains an important task. We examined the influence of benthic filter-feeding Hydropsyche and Simuliidae on downstream transport distance (S P ) and deposition rate (v dep ) of POM in two streams. We conducted five field experiments using radiolabeled ( 14 C) natural detritus and living diatoms (Asterionella) to measure longitudinal loss (k P m Ϫ1 ϭ 1/S P ) before and after complete removal of filter-feeding benthic macroinvertebrates. k P decreased following filter-feeder removal in each experiment, although meta-analysis indicated no consistent nonzero effect. However, the changes in k P were within the range to be expected from previously published rates of capture by the filter-feeders, indicating limited statistical power. We also examined uptake of radiolabeled POM by filter-feeders in three of the experiments. Simuliidae radioactivity increased significantly during two of the three releases of POM, although uptake accounted for up to 11% of wholestream POM deposition. Our results suggest that transported POM and diatoms are deposited from the water column rapidly and that mechanisms other than filter-feeding by invertebrates are responsible for most of the transfer of POM from the water column to the sediments of streams.Capture and ingestion of suspended particulate organic matter (POM) by benthic filter-feeders is one pathway through which carbon and nutrients are transferred from the water column to the sediments, resulting in their retention, utilization, and cycling (Wallace et al.

show abstract

Water Quality Improvements in Liverpool Docks: The Role of Filter Feeders in Algal and Nutrient Dynamics

Cited by 32 publications

References 21 publications

Urban marine ecology in southern California: the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky intertidal habitat

Urban marine ecology in southern California: the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky intertidal habitat

An ecological perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures

The influence of filter‐feeding benthic macroinvertebrates on the transport and deposition of particulate organic matter and diatoms in two streams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About