Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] A Review of Urban Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and Remediation

  We review how urbanization alters aquatic ecosystems, as well as actions that managers can take to remediate urban waters. Urbanization affects streams by fundamentally altering longitudinal and lateral ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A Review of Urban Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and Remediation Author: Hughes, Robert M., Dunham, Susie, Maas-Hebner, Kathleen G., Yeakley, J. Alan, Schreck, Carl B., Harte, Michael, Molina, Nancy, Shock, Clinton C., Kaczynski, Victor W., Schaeffer, Jeff Year: 2014 We review how urbanization alters aquatic ecosystems, as well as actions that managers can take to remediate urban waters. Urbanization affects streams by fundamentally altering longitudinal and lateral processes that in turn alter hydrology, habitat, and water chemistry; these effects create physical and chemical stressors that in turn affect the biota. Urban streams often suffer from multiple stressor effects that have collectively been termed an “urban stream syndrome,” in which no single factor dominates degraded conditions. Resource managers have multiple ways of combating the urban stream syndrome. These approaches range from whole-watershed protection to reach-scale habitat rehabilitation, but the prescription must be matched to the scale of the factors that are causing the problem, and results will likely not be immediate because of lengthy recovery times. Although pristine or reference conditions are far from attainable, urban stream rehabilitation is a worthy goal because appropriate actions can provide ecosystem improvements as well as increased ecosystem service benefits for human society. Title: A Review of Urban Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and Remediation Author: Hughes, Robert M., Dunham, Susie, Maas-Hebner, Kathleen G., Yeakley, J. Alan, Schreck, Carl B., Harte, Michael, Molina, Nancy, Shock, Clinton C., Kaczynski, Victor W., Schaeffer, Jeff Year: 2014 We review how urbanization alters aquatic ecosystems, as well as actions that managers can take to remediate urban waters. Urbanization affects streams by fundamentally altering longitudinal and lateral processes that in turn alter hydrology, habitat, and water chemistry; these effects create physical and chemical stressors that in turn affect the biota. Urban streams often suffer from multiple stressor effects that have collectively been termed an “urban stream syndrome,” in which no single factor dominates degraded conditions. Resource managers have multiple ways of combating the urban stream syndrome. These approaches range from whole-watershed protection to reach-scale habitat rehabilitation, but the prescription must be matched to the scale of the factors that are causing the problem, and results will likely not be immediate because of lengthy recovery times. Although pristine or reference conditions are far from attainable, urban stream rehabilitation is a worthy goal because appropriate actions can provide ecosystem improvements as well as increased ecosystem service benefits for human society. Close

• 2. [Article] The Limitation of Spread of Non-native Marine Invertebrates from Artificial Structures to Natural Habitats

  Artificial structures created for aquatic anthropogenic activities are often colonized and fouled by many non-native species, few of which have invaded natural areas. Some research has indicated predation ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Limitation of Spread of Non-native Marine Invertebrates from Artificial Structures to Natural Habitats Author: McClees, Whitney, de Rivera, Catherine E. Year: 2017 Artificial structures created for aquatic anthropogenic activities are often colonized and fouled by many non-native species, few of which have invaded natural areas. Some research has indicated predation is limiting the spread of non-native species, while other research has indicated that it is dispersal-driven. To determine the effects of dispersal limitation and predation on the risk to surrounding habitats of being invaded by non-native species established on marina docks, we used a three-factor design, deploying seven unglazed ceramic panels per each treatment combination of 1) inside versus outside a marina in Yaquina Bay, Oregon; 2) cage keeping out predators >mesh size, no cage, or partial cage; 3) fixed near the substrata (benthic) versus floating 1m below the surface. We also moved panels of either adults or recruits from floating in the marina to any of the treatment combinations to test if they would have lower survival outside by the substrate. The community on panels suspended in the marina only minimally overlapped with panels outside of the marina near the bottom. However, there was no difference between the cage treatments, which suggests that predators excluded by the cages are not responsible for the observed differences in species richness or composition. Title: The Limitation of Spread of Non-native Marine Invertebrates from Artificial Structures to Natural Habitats Author: McClees, Whitney, de Rivera, Catherine E. Year: 2017 Artificial structures created for aquatic anthropogenic activities are often colonized and fouled by many non-native species, few of which have invaded natural areas. Some research has indicated predation is limiting the spread of non-native species, while other research has indicated that it is dispersal-driven. To determine the effects of dispersal limitation and predation on the risk to surrounding habitats of being invaded by non-native species established on marina docks, we used a three-factor design, deploying seven unglazed ceramic panels per each treatment combination of 1) inside versus outside a marina in Yaquina Bay, Oregon; 2) cage keeping out predators >mesh size, no cage, or partial cage; 3) fixed near the substrata (benthic) versus floating 1m below the surface. We also moved panels of either adults or recruits from floating in the marina to any of the treatment combinations to test if they would have lower survival outside by the substrate. The community on panels suspended in the marina only minimally overlapped with panels outside of the marina near the bottom. However, there was no difference between the cage treatments, which suggests that predators excluded by the cages are not responsible for the observed differences in species richness or composition. Close