Environmental Affects of Marine Shellfish
Aquaculture On Benthic Fauna And Water
Column Characteristics
Andrew Suhrbier, Daniel
Cheney, Mary Middleton and
Aimee Christy
Joth Davis
Robin Downey
John Richardson and Carter
Newell
Mark Luckenbach
Tessa Getchis and Jamie
Vaudrey
Dror Angel
Research funded by: NOAA NMAI
and the NOAA Aquaculture Program
Why is this and related research important?
• A need to better understand the relationship between culture
methods and the environment.
– Direction to farmers to avoid overcrowding, reduced growth,
increased mortalities, and affects on other aquatic species
• Heightened scrutiny by regulatory agencies and expanded
permitting authorities.
– ESA, EFH, Section 10, state and local shorelines permits, etc.
• Desire to expand shellfish farming into new, previously unused
habitats.
– Offshore and subtidal sites, slightly used intertidal lands
• Greater interest and involvement by public agencies.
– Enhanced use of public lands, more revenues, with increased
environmental analyses
• Increased public, NGO and media scrutiny.
– Highly publicized and tending to polarize opinion
Overall Purpose and Approach
1. Characterize the effects of alternative shellfish
culture methods on eelgrass
2. Compare benthic species and fish within and
adjacent to shellfish culture and control sites
3. Measure sediment and water column conditions
associated with culture method
4. Model carrying capacity, phytoplankton
concentrations and sedimentation
5. Develop farming recommendations
Study site example -- Hood Canal
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes
– Without Predator
Tubes
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes
– Without Predator
Tubes
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes
– Without Predator
Tubes
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes
– Without Predator
Tubes
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes
– Without Predator
Tubes
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes/Netting
– Without Predator Tubes
Shellfish Culture Habitats
• Manila clams
– Net-protected
– Bag-on-bottom
• Oysters
– Bag-on-bottom
– Rack-and-bag
– Longline-and-bag
• Geoducks
– With Predator Tubes
– Without Predator Tubes
Biological effects – habitat complexity
Bivalve recruitment, Hood Canal
120
Protothaca staminea
Numbers /sq m
100
80
60
Mya arenaria
Macoma nasuta
Macoma lama
Macoma inquinata
Macoma balthica
Clinocardium nuttallii
Clinocardium blandum
40
20
0
OysBag
Hanging OysRack ClamBag ClamBag OysBag
Under
Inside
Hanging OysRack ClamBag
Outside
Small Crustaceans – 11/2004
6,000
Numbers / sq m
5,000
4,000
Acarida
Copepoda
Decapoda
Amphipoda
Cumacea
Tanaidacea
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Oys
Hang
Oys Bag
Under
Oys
Rack
Clam
Bag
Inside
Clam
Bag
Oys
Hang
Oys Bag OysRack
Ouside
Small Crustaceans – 5/2005
6,000
8,756
Numbers / sq m
5,000
4,000
Acarida
Cirripedia
Copepoda
Decapoda
Amphipoda
Cumacea
Isopoda
Tanaidacea
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Clam
Bag
Oys
Hang
Oys
Bag
Under
Oys
Rack
Clam
Bag
Inside
Clam
Bag
Oys
Hang
Oys
Bag
Outside
Oys
Rack
Annelid worms
9,000
8,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Under
Outside
11/15/04
Under
Inside
4/28/2005
Oyster
Rack
Clam
Bag
Hanging
Oyster
Rack
Clam
Bag
Clam
Bag
Oyster
Bag
Hanging
Oyster
Rack
Oyster
Bag
Hanging
Oyster
Rack
Oyster
Bag
Hanging
0
Oyster
Bag
Numbers / sq m
7,000
Outside
Spionidae, unident.
Spio filicornis
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Scoloplos armiger armiger
Scoloplos armiger alaskensis
Rhynchospio glutaea
Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata
Pseudopolydora kempi
Rhynchospio glutaea
Podarkeopsis glabrus
Platynereis bicianaliculata
Phyllodoce longipes
Oligochaeta
Notomastus tenuis
Nereididae, unident. (juv)
Nereis procera
Nephtys caecoides
Micropodiarke dubia
Mediomastus californiensis
Leitoscoloplos sp(p). (juv)
Hemipodus simplex
Glycinde sp(p).(juv)
Glycinde polygnatha
Glycinde picta
Eteone californica
Dorvillea annulata
Capitella capitata -hyperspecies
Capitella capitata -complex
Boccardia proboscidea
Armandia brevis
Ampharetidae, unident. (juv)
300
25
250
20
200
15
150
10
100
50
5
0
0
Hanging Clam Bag
On
Oyster
Bag
Oyster
Rack
Hanging Clam Bag
Oyster
Bag
Outside
Oyster
Rack
Number of Taxa
Number per square meter (1000's)
Epibenthic results
Epibenthic results
Copepods (1000s/sq m)
250
Number per square meter
Amphipods (#/sq m)
Barnacle larvae (100s/sq m)
200
150
100
50
0
Hanging
Clam Bag
On
Oyster
Bag
Oyster
Rack
Hanging
Clam Bag
Oyster
Bag
Outside
Oyster
Rack
Epibenthic animals, top 5
Rank Order
1
2
3
4
5
On the Culture Gear
Hanging
Clam Bag
Copepoda
Copepoda
Cirripedia
Cirripedia
Nematoda
Nematoda
Ostracoda
Ostracoda
Foraminifera
Cumacea
Oyster Bag
Copepoda
Nematoda
Cirripedia
Ostracoda
Polychaetes
Oyster Rack
Copepoda
Cirripedia
Nematoda
Ostracoda
Cumacea
Rank Order
1
2
3
4
5
Outside or Adjacent to the Culture Gear
Hanging
Clam Bag
Oyster Bag
Copepoda
Copepoda
Copepoda
Nematoda
Cirripedia
Nematoda
Cirripedia
Nematoda
Cirripedia
Ostracoda
Ostracoda
Ostracoda
Foraminifera
Cumacea
Oligochaete
Oyster Rack
Copepoda
Cirripedia
Nematoda
Cumacea
Ostracoda
EBM epibenthic totals (rock vs sand/mud)
Number / sq m
70,000
60,000
Treatment A
50,000
Treatment B
40,000
Control
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
5-yr Avg
Biological effects, Chesapeake Bay
Macroalgae on clam nets
Densities of Callinectes =
to seagrass beds and > than
adjacent sand habitat
200
Density (#/sq m)
Mean density of Xanthid crabs
> those in the other habitats
by more than an order of
magnitude
Callinectes
Xanthids
Other Decapods
150
100
50
0
Seagrass
Clam net
Sand
Fish and large epifauna (Video)
Example of video footage gathered: Clam Bag
Fish and large epifauna (Video)
Example of video footage gathered: Mixed habitats
Phytoplankton feeding – example video
1000s cells per mil
Comparative feeding
experiments in 7 liter
containers with a starting
concentration of ~330,000
cells per ml Thalassosira
diatom (measured with
Coulter counter).
Manila Clams
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Control
Experimental
0
5
10
15
20
Time in Minutes
25
30
Objectives: Year 2+ (new NOAA funding)
• Complete and expand the analyses and
interpretation of data on habitat and community
characteristics
• Examine the utilization and habitat responses of
resident fish in EFH and ESA listed species in
shellfish growout areas
• Further assess and model sediment and water
column interactions
• Quantify seasonal patterns of nutrient uptake by
macroalgae associated with commercial shellfish
growout
Objectives: Year 2+ (new NOAA funding)
Collaborate with growers, researchers, and
environmental managers to:
1) prepare relevant findings with an emphasis on
the ecological interactions of the specific
culture practice,
2) offer guidance for culture practices, and
2) prepare language appropriate for inclusion in
the ECOP and regulatory/permitting
documents
Thanks to NOAA and the team