lessons learned about oyster recruitment dynamics from ...lessons learned about oyster recruitment...
TRANSCRIPT
Lessons Learned About Oyster Recruitment Dynamics from Coast-Wide Collaboration
Kerstin Wasson Brent B. HughesJohn S. BerrimanAndrew L. ChangAnna K. DeckPaul A. DinnelSarah DudasCharlie EndrisMichael EspinozaMatthew C. FernerEdwin D. GrosholzDavid Kimbro Jennifer L. RuesinkAlan C. TrimbleDick Vander SchaafChela J. ZabinDanielle C. Zacherl
Impetus: Recruitment at Elkhorn Slough
Recruitment monitoring
Lots of recruitment…in some years
Recruitment variability
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Aver
age
dens
ity o
f rec
ruits
per
m2
Virtually no recruitment since 2012
Big recruitment event
Super big recruitment
event
Recruitment variability
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Aver
age
dens
ity o
f rec
ruits
per
m2
Virtually no recruitment since 2012
Big recruitment event
Super big recruitment
event
Recruitment variability
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Aver
age
dens
ity o
f rec
ruits
per
m2
Virtually no recruitment since 2012
Super big recruitment
event
Big recruitment event
Photo by Erin Garcia
Restoration efforts with native clam shells to form naturalistic clusters
But restoration depends on recruitment
So raised new generation in the lab
Oly aquaculture: another topic for coastwide collaboration
Photo: Dan Gossard
Hatchery-raised juveniles in recruitment-limited estuaries
Illustration: J. Blum
Supply-side ecology: importance of recruits
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Aver
age
dens
ity o
f rec
ruits
per
m2
Virtually no recruitment since 2012
Super big recruitment
event
Big recruitment event
How typical is this?
Paul Dinnel, Fidalgo Bay
Jennifer Ruesink, Alan Trimble, Willapa BayDick Van der Schaaf, Netarts Bay
Edwin Grosholz, David Kimbro, Anna Deck, Chela Zabin, Tomales BayAndy Chang, Anna Deck, Matt Ferner, San Francisco Bay
Kerstin Wasson, Elkhorn Slough
Danielle Zacherl, John Berriman, Michael Espinosa, Newport Bay
Collaboration across 2500 km of coast
Edwin Grosholz, Chela Zabin
Sarah Dudas, Strait of Georgia
Do other bays have years with zero recruitment?
Fidalgo Bay
Willapa BayNetarts Bay
Tomales BaySan Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Patterns at level of 37 individual sites
Strait of Georgia54% of siteshad some years with zero recruitment
Fidalgo Bay
Willapa BayNetarts Bay
Tomales BaySan Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Bay-wide patterns
Strait of Georgia
4/8 bays had years with zero recruitment at all sites in the bay
Do other bays have years with zero recruitment?
YES
Is variance in recruitment driven by broad regional factors, and thus synchronous across systems?
Moran effect
Synchrony of separate populations due to shared environmental drivers
Fidalgo Bay
Willapa BayNetarts Bay
Tomales BaySan Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Moran effect and Olympia oysters:Coastwide effects
Strait of Georgia
e.g.Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Fidalgo Bay
Willapa BayNetarts Bay
Tomales BaySan Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Moran effect and Olympia oysters:Regional effects
Strait of Georgia
e.g.ENSO
Synchrony due to shared larval pool
E.g.San Francisco Bay as source to adjacent sites
Estuary Site name Site #
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%
Schooner Cove 2 100% 23% 9%
Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%
*Ladysmith Harbour 4 10% 53% 100%
Fidalgo Bay Trestle Plot B 5 2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 2% 7% 41% 35%
*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%
Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Long Island Slough 8 3% 2% 3% 1% 100% 16%
Netarts Bay Netarts Bay 9 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%
W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%
E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%
W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%
*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%
W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%
E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%
W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%
*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%
Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%
Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%
Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%
Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%
Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%
Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%
Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%
North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%
Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%
Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%
*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%
South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%
Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%
Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%
Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%
Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%
*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%
Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%
Tomales Bay
San Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Recruitment percent relative to best year
Strait of Georgia
Willapa Bay
Interannualrecruitment patterns
37 sites from North to South
Coloring is based on relative scale
100% is best recruitment year for that site
All other years relative to that
0% is no recruitment
Estuary Site name Site #
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%
Schooner Cove 2 100% 23% 9%
Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%
*Ladysmith Harbour 4 10% 53% 100%
Fidalgo Bay Trestle Plot B 5 2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 2% 7% 41% 35%
*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%
Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Long Island Slough 8 3% 2% 3% 1% 100% 16%
Netarts Bay Netarts Bay 9 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%
W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%
E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%
W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%
*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%
W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%
E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%
W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%
*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%
Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%
Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%
Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%
Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%
Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%
Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%
Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%
North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%
Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%
Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%
*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%
South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%
Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%
Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%
Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%
Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%
*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%
Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%
Tomales Bay
San Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Recruitment percent relative to best year
Strait of Georgia
Willapa Bay
No synchrony
Do you see any columns (=years) that are mostly reddish or mostly greenish?
NO
Sites do not share same good and bad years
(See our Ecology paper for fancy statistical tests for synchrony: multivariate nMDS plots and synchrony-by-distance analyses)
Is variance in recruitment driven by broad regional factors, and thus synchronous across systems?
NOReject strong Moran effect or shared larval pool
Local dynamics are keyImportant role for watershed/estuary management
Is variance in recruitment synchronous WITHIN bays?
Estuary Site name Site #
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%
Schooner Cove 2 100% 23% 9%
Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%
*Ladysmith Harbour 4 10% 53% 100%
Fidalgo Bay Trestle Plot B 5 2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 2% 7% 41% 35%
*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%
Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Long Island Slough 8 3% 2% 3% 1% 100% 16%
Netarts Bay Netarts Bay 9 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%
W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%
E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%
W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%
*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%
W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%
E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%
W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%
*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%
Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%
Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%
Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%
Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%
Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%
Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%
Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%
North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%
Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%
Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%
*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%
South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%
Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%
Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%
Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%
Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%
*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%
Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%
Tomales Bay
San Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Recruitment percent relative to best year
Strait of Georgia
Willapa Bay
Synchrony among sites within estuary
Strong synchrony within two estuaries,
Willapa BayElkhorn Slough
Note this makes them prone to estuary-wide recruitment failure in bad years
Estuary Site name Site #
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%
Schooner Cove 2 100% 23% 9%
Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%
*Ladysmith Harbour 4 10% 53% 100%
Fidalgo Bay Trestle Plot B 5 2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 2% 7% 41% 35%
*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%
Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Long Island Slough 8 3% 2% 3% 1% 100% 16%
Netarts Bay Netarts Bay 9 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%
W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%
E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%
W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%
*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%
W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%
E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%
W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%
*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%
Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%
Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%
Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%
Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%
Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%
Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%
Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%
North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%
Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%
Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%
*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%
South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%
Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%
Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%
Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%
Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%
*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%
Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%
Tomales Bay
San Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Recruitment percent relative to best year
Strait of Georgia
Willapa Bay
Synchrony among sites within bay
Most of the bays had no or very weak synchrony among sites
Note this makes them resilient to bay-wide recruitment failure
One site doing terribly but another doing well in a given year
Is variance in recruitment synchronous WITHIN bays?
Sometimes YESthis is where you get bay-wide failure
Often NO“portfolio effect” for recruitment: environmental heterogeneity buffers against having a bad year everywhere
What predicts recruitment failure?
Why do some bays have a lot more red
than others?
Estuary Site name Site #
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%
Schooner Cove 2 100% 23% 9%
Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%
*Ladysmith Harbour 4 10% 53% 100%
Fidalgo Bay Trestle Plot B 5 2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 2% 7% 41% 35%
*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%
Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Long Island Slough 8 3% 2% 3% 1% 100% 16%
Netarts Bay Netarts Bay 9 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%
W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%
E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%
W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%
*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%
W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%
E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%
W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%
*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%
Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%
Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%
Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%
Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%
Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%
Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%
Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%
North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%
Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%
Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%
*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%
South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%
Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%
Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%
Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%
Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%
*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%
Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%
Tomales Bay
San Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Newport Bay
Recruitment percent relative to best year
Strait of Georgia
Willapa Bay
Because estuary is so small?
Good years vs. bad years due to oceanographic/climate drivers?
ELKHORN SLOUGH AS POSTER CHILDStrong marine influence?
Small size?
Marine influence: winter salinity
-.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6%
yea
rs w
ith 0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34Salinity in w ettest season
Sites where strong marine influence leads to high winter salinity are prone to recruitment failure
(psu)
Prop
ortio
n ye
ars
with
failu
re R2 = 0.24, P = 0.002
Estuary size
10 km
Estuary size
-.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
% y
ears
with
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5log size
No relationship with recruitment failureNewport and Strait of Georgia bays are tiny but reliable
(hectares)
Prop
ortio
n ye
ars
with
failu
reR2 = 0.001, P = 0.9
Network of oyster sitesElkhorn Slough is very isolated, with a small network
10 km
Next oysters to North: 150 km
Next oysters to South: 450 km
Length of network: 7 km
Network of oyster sitesNewport Bay region has many sites nearby with oysters
NewportBay
10 km
Length of network:46 km
Network of oyster sites in/near bay
Bays with extensive networks of oyster sites have no recruitment failureInforms conservation and restoration plans
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
perc
ent y
ears
with
zer
o re
crui
tmen
t
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Length of adult oyster network (km)
R2 = 0.95, P < 0.0001
What predicts recruitment failure?
Marine influence? YESSize of embayment? NOSize of oyster network? YES
Restoration can improve this
Lessons learned from broad geographic analysis of oyster recruitment
• Recruitment failure is fairly common
• Aquaculture may be needed in recruitment-prone bays
• Not much synchrony among bays
• Synchrony within bays can result in bay-wide recruitment failutre
• Environmental heterogeneity provides “portfolio effect” – protection from bay-wide recruitment failure
• Restoring interconnected oyster networks will improve recruitment
Value of coast-wide collaboration