A Synopsis of Research on the Ecosystem
Services Provided by Large-Scale Oyster
Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay
David G. Bruce, Jeffrey C. Cornwell, Lora Harris, Thomas F. Ihde, M. Lisa
Kellogg, Scott Knoche, Rom N. Lipcius, Danielle N. McCulloch-Prosser,
Stephen P. McIninch, Matthew B. Ogburn, Rochelle D. Seitz, Jeremy Testa,
Stephanie R. Westby, and Bruce Vogt

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-8
January 2021

A Synopsis of Research on the Ecosystem Services Provided byLarge-Scale Oyster Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay
David G. Bruce1, Jeffrey C. Cornwell2, Lora Harris2, Thomas F. Ihde3, M. Lisa Kellogg4, Scott Knoche3,
Rom N. Lipcius4, Danielle N. McCulloch-Prosser5, Stephen P. McIninch5, Matthew B. Ogburn6,
Rochelle D. Seitz4, Jeremy Testa2, Stephanie R. Westby1, and Bruce Vogt1

1

NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science3
Morgan State University, Patuxent Environmental and Aquatic Research Laboratory
4
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
5
Virginia Commonwealth University Center for Environmental Studies
6
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
2

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-8
January 2021

U.S. Department of Commerce
Wynn Coggins, Acting Secretary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Benjamin Friedman, Acting NOAA Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
Paul Doremus, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Recommended citation:
Bruce, D. G., J. C. Cornwell, L. Harris, T. F. Ihde, M. L. Kellogg, S. Knoche, R. N. Lipcius, D. N.
McCulloch-Prosser, S. P. McIninch, M. B. Ogburn, R. D. Seitz, J. Testa, S. R. Westby, and B. Vogt.
2021. A Synopsis of Research on the Ecosystem Services Provided by Large-Scale Oyster Restorationin the Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OHC-8, 52 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 460
Annapolis, MD 21401
Or online at:
http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos/iiTable of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................v
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................1
Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................................................................5
Project Synopses .......................................................................................................................................................6
Nutrient Cycling Research .....................................................................................................................................6
Fish and Blue Crab Communities Research .........................................................................................................20
Ecosystem and Economic Modeling ....................................................................................................................38
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................42
Information Gaps ...................................................................................................................................................43
Journal Publications...............................................................................................................................................45
Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................................................46
Appendix: Organisms Collected at Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration Sites during Ecosystem Services
Sampling ..................................................................................................................................................................49iii

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Kim Couranz, Mandy Bromilow, and Morgan Corey for editorial assistance.

iv

Executive Summary
Eastern oyster (Crassotrea virginica) populations and reef habitat in the Chesapeake Bay have beensignificantly diminished by disease, overfishing, and habitat loss. Restoring oyster reefs at a large scaleis the primary approach used by managers to recover oyster populations and their associated ecosystemservice benefits. Understanding and quantifying the ecosystem services provided by restored oyster reefs
is important to guiding future restoration.
The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement called for state and federal partners of the Chesapeake
Bay Program to restore native oyster habitat and populations in 10 Bay tributaries by 2025. An
additional objective to restoring oyster populations was to recover ecosystem functions provided byoyster reefs within the selected tributaries. NOAA Fisheries funded eight studies focused on quantifying
ecosystem services associated with tributary-scale oyster restoration projects occurring around the Bay(see Figure 2 for tributaries). Managed by the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, this effort was termed the“Oyster Reef Ecosystem Services (ORES) Project.” In general, these studies examined how nutrient
cycling rates, macrofaunal abundance, and fish abundance and diet respond to restoration activity. The
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and NOAA Fisheries also provided funding for a ninth study that
integrated food web and economic impact models to simulate socioeconomic outcomes linked to oyster
reef restoration. This document summarizes and discusses the results of the nine studies.
Key project findings are:• Nutrient cycling rates increase with oyster density, and are enhanced by biological activity of theentire oyster reef community• Extrapolated nitrogen removal rates were estimated to be 57 lbs. N acre-1 y-1 for low oyster
biomass (< 75 g DW m-2), which translates to an estimated annual N removal of ~20,000 lbs. of
N for the 350 acres of the Harris Creek restoration project.
• Successfully restored reefs are expected to remove about 7 times as much nitrogen each day thanunrestored sand/mud bottom areas.
• Observed water clarity improvements are mediated by particle uptake by restored oyster reef
communities. Simulation model results suggest that up to 20% of chlorophyll-a (planktonic
algae) can be removed per 300 linear meters of restored reef.
• Macrofaunal (benthic invertebrates that may serve as fish prey) density increases with oyster
density, and can exceed 5,000 individuals per square meter.
• Self-sustaining oyster populations and habitat can persist even at an elevated risk of shelldegradation and mortality in more saline portions of the Bay, when protected from exploitation.
• Macrofauna diversity increases with the structural complexity of restoration sites. Underwater
video indicates that oyster restoration has resulted in oyster reefs that are taller and more
complex than harvested reefs, providing habitat for a greater diversity of species.
• Abundance of small reef-resident fish species increases with oyster density.
• Survival of juvenile blue crab was three times greater on oyster reefs than on unstructured
habitats.
• Thirty-five species of larger transient fishes were collected on oyster reefs; eighteen species havecommercial or recreational value.

v

•
•

Diets of white and silver perch were dominated by oyster-reef dependent macrofauna. Amongthe most frequently consumed reef prey were sea squirts, mud crabs, polychaete worms, andsnapping shrimp.
If protected from oyster harvest, mature restored reef ecosystems in the Choptank River region
are expected to improve fishery landings and associated economic benefits by $23 million
annually and support an additional 300 jobs. Blue crab landings account for an annual $11
million of increased economic benefits.

Overall, restored oyster reefs provide hard and structured habitat in an estuary that is otherwise
dominated by soft bottom and fine sediments. These complex reef habitats contribute to reductions in
nutrients and consequently to enhanced water clarity. They increase fish foraging resources and are usedby many adult and juvenile fish species. And, under some conditions, they are expected to positively
affect regional economies through enhanced fishery landings.

viIntroduction
Since the mid-1800s, Chesapeake Bay oyster populations have experienced precipitous declines.
Initially, enhanced harvest efficiency led to habitat destruction and stock overfishing (Rothschild et al.
1994). Since the 1950s, oyster disease mortality, coupled with continued harvest pressure and habitat
loss, has further depressed oyster populations to all-time low levels (Wilberg et al. 2011). Population
declines resulted in the loss of ecosystem services (Grabowski et al. 2005, Fulford et al. 2007, andKellogg et al 2013) provided by oysters themselves and the hard and relatively complex habitat theycreate. Population declines also led to decreased commercial harvest value. Oyster habitat restoration
employing varied scales and methodologies has been used to offset declines in commercial harvest andecosystem functions (Luckenbach et al. 1999).
In 2009, Executive Order 13508 and the resulting Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Strategy
called for federal agencies to establish specific measurable environmental goals for restoring the
Chesapeake Bay and set in motion tributary-scale oyster restoration. Prior to the Restoration Strategy,
restoration efforts were generally less targeted and on a smaller reef-level scale. Consequently, theconcept of tributary-scale restoration was to significantly increase oyster abundance and reef area in atargeted tributary, facilitating greater oyster population recovery, resilience, and associated ecosystemservices relative to initial smaller-scale projects.
In response to the Executive Order and Strategy, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Sustainable
Fisheries Goal Implementation Team (Fish GIT) convened the Oyster Metrics Workgroup to develop ascience-based, shared definition of a successfully restored tributary for the purpose of tracking progress
toward tributary-scale restoration. The workgroup was composed of representatives from the state andfederal agencies involved in Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, as well as oyster scientists fromacademic institutions. The workgroup produced a report (Oyster Metrics Workgroup 2011) defining
tributary and reef-scale restoration goals.
According to the Metrics Report, a successfully restored reef should:• Have a minimum mean density of 50 oysters and 50 grams dry weight/square meter (m2)covering at least 30% of the target restoration area at 6 years post restoration,• Have two or more age classes present,• Exhibit stable or increasing spatial extent, reef height, and shell budget, and• Have a minimum of 30% of target area covered with added reef material or planted spat-on-shell(juvenile hatchery oysters attached to oyster shell).
A successfully restored tributary is one where:• A minimum of 50% of restorable area (as defined by current distribution of oyster shell bottom)
that constitutes at least 8% of historic oyster habitat within a given tributary meets the reef-level
metrics above.
As documented in the Metrics Report, “the goal of oyster restoration at the tributary-level is todramatically increase oyster populations and recover a substantial portion of the ecosystem functions
provided by oyster reefs within the tributary.” Implicit in the goal is that working on a tributary scale isrequired to achieve sufficiently large changes in oyster populations necessary to exceed several

1

threshold values (shell volume, larval supply and survival, disease tolerance, etc.) and achieve a regime
shift that supports greater population abundance and enhanced ecosystem services. The cumulative
effects of restoration activities are unlikely to be linear (Figure 1), and restoration of oyster populations
and the ecological functions they provide may require exceeding threshold improvements. While theimmediate goals of restoration projects focus on oyster population and reef area targets, restoring theecosystem functions of oyster reefs is essential to restoration success but more difficult to measure. The
nine studies summarized in this Technical Memorandum aimed to quantify the level of ecosystemservices provided or enhanced as a result of tributary-scale restoration implemented to achieve theestablished Metrics Report goals.

Figure 1. Generalized representation of a threshold response adapted from the restoration metrics report(Oyster Metrics Workgroup 2011). Improvement in conditions (toward the right) must exceed a criticalvalue (open circle) to return the system to stable enhanced oyster population or ecological function(upward).

Goal Implementation
The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, drafted subsequent to Executive Order 13508, wassigned by governors of the six states of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the mayor of Washington, D.C.,
and officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The
Agreement called for state and federal partners of the CBP to “restore native oyster habitat andpopulations in 10 Bay tributaries by 2025, and ensure their protection” (Figure 2). As with the Executive
Order, responsibility for achieving this goal rests with the Fish GIT. For both Maryland and Virginia,

2the Fish GIT has convened tributary-specific restoration workgroups that plan, implement, monitor, andtrack progress toward the restoration success criteria identified by the Oyster Metrics Workgroup
Restoration workgroups were formed through partnerships among federal and state agencies, academic
institutions, and nongovernmental organizations. Primary funding sources for in-water reef construction
and monitoring include the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, NOAA, the U.S Army
Corps of Engineers, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and The Nature Conservancy.

Figure 2. Location of Chesapeake Bay tributary-scale oyster restoration activities and ecosystem services
research projects.

3Currently (2020), restoration work is complete at Harris Creek and the Little Choptank River inMaryland and the Lafayette River in Virginia; success criteria monitoring is ongoing in these tributaries.
Restoration is in the planning or implementation stage in all other tributaries. Although restoration area
goals are not firmly set for all tributaries, the total area planned for ten tributaries is nearly 2,000 acres(Table 1). These are formidable restoration goals, and may represent the largest oyster sanctuary (nonharvest) restoration endeavor ever (The Nature Conservancy 2019).
In Maryland, restoration methods typically consist of 1) constructing reefs from a variety of substratematerials and planting the reefs with hatchery-produced oyster spat-on-shell (SOS), or 2) planting SOS
on existing natural oyster shell reefs. Because natural spat settlement is more successful in higher
salinities, Virginia restoration consists largely of constructing a reef base from various substrates andrelying on natural oyster recruitment to populate the reefs; however, some SOS planting also occurs.
Constructed reefs in early Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts were made from oyster shell, but becauseof shell scarcity and the magnitude of tributary-scale restoration, additional materials such as stone,crushed concrete, or clam shell are now used in addition to oyster shell. Intrinsic to their design
objectives, constructed reefs generally exhibit greater vertical relief than most naturally existing oyster
shell reefs, regardless of the material used.
Table 1. Reef area restored or planned for restoration in the ten Chesapeake Bay tributaries selected forlarge-scale oyster restoration. Areas exclude restoration activity conducted at these locations before the
Chesapeake Bay Program Oyster Restoration Initiative began (2012). Tributary plans can be accessed
at: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/who/publicationsarchive/maryland_and_virginia_oyster_restoration_interagency_teams
Planned Restoration
Area (Acres)
351

Complete

Little Choptank River

358

Complete

Manokin River

421

In progress

St. Mary’s River25

In progress

Tributary
Harris Creek

Tred Avon River

Status147

In progress

22 (draft)

In progress

Lafayette River

12

Complete

Lynnhaven River63

In progress

Piankatank River235

In progress

York River198

In progress

Great Wicomico River

4

Ecosystem Services
Inherent in the goal of implementing large-scale oyster restoration in multiple Bay tributaries is the idea
that, as an ecological keystone species, oysters provide valuable ecosystem services. Accordingly, acomponent of the oyster restoration outcome in Executive Order 13508 was to “…design a pilot projectto quantify the ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs...” (Chesapeake Bay Federal Leadership
Committee 2012). In response to the outcome, in 2013, NOAA Fisheries, through the NOAA
Chesapeake Bay Office, announced a Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) requesting proposals to assess
ecosystem services of restored oyster reefs with focus on quantifying nutrient cycling (including
denitrification, nitrogen sequestration), fish utilization, and trophic interactions on subtidal oyster
restoration reefs. A supplementary FFO was announced in 2014 with the same research focus. The 2013
and 2014 NOAA FFOs provided funding awards to the University of Maryland, the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science for six research projects. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office also funded research
conducted by its own field science team.
A science gap identified in the fish habitat outcome (Chesapeake Bay Program 2018) of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Agreement was “[a]n ecosystem services valuation study that quantifies the value of fish
habitat would allow us to effectively communicate the economic benefits of restoration andconservation.” In 2017, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and NOAA funded a Morgan State
University regional economics modeling proposal focused on oyster restoration activities within
NOAA’s Choptank River Habitat Focus Area. In total, nine projects were funded to quantify Oyster
Reef Ecosystem Services (ORES) with a specific focus on the benefits supported by subtidal oyster
restoration activities throughout the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2).
The objective of this document is to summarize the findings of ORES research projects. The nine studies
were grouped into four general themes: nutrient cycling, macrofaunal communities, fish communities,
and economic modeling. Studies within themes are contrasted to identify unified results. Realized andpotential relevance to resource managers and policy makers are discussed, and pertinent data gaps are
identified within and in addition to the four research themes.

5Project Synopses
Nutrient Cycling ResearchIntegrated Assessment of Oyster Reef Ecosystem Services: Quantifying
Denitrification Rates and Ecosystem Services
J. C. Cornwell1*, M. L. Kellogg2, M. S. Owens1, M. Jackson1
1
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science2
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Grant Award period: March 2015–February 2019*
Contact: cornwell@umces.edu

Our goal was to improve understanding of the nitrogen (N) removal capability of oyster restoration bymeasuring nutrient recycling and denitrification rates associated with oyster reef community
development. Project objectives were to: 1) quantify changes in denitrification rates in relation to oyster
biomass density; 2) assess seasonal patterns in denitrification rates and nutrient fluxes; 3) contrast
denitrification rates and nutrient fluxes among non-reef sediments, reef sediments, and oyster clump
treatments; and 4) extrapolate research results to tributary scales to assess the utility of large-scale oyster
restoration in overall nutrient reduction to better inform management decisions.
Methods
Fluxes of N2-N (denitrification), dissolved ammonium, nitrate plus nitrite, and dissolved oxygen were
determined at the 350-acre oyster restoration project at Harris Creek, Maryland. The ex-situ incubation
approach involved adding oyster communities to embedded trays for ~1 month, incubating the trays
under dark and light conditions for 1-2 hour time courses for gas and solute sampling, and determining
the rates of gas and solute exchange for 136 individual reef tray incubations. Reef exchange rates werecompared to rates of sediment-water exchange in core incubations from reef-adjacent environments
throughout Harris Creek.
To control for the influence of the restoration method employed, we limited our study to sites where
oyster spat-on-shell (SOS) were planted directly on existing oyster shell bottom (i.e., areas with
substratum conditions suitable for oyster survival and growth, but without the addition of hard substrateprior to planting SOS). To control for the influence of oyster age, we selected only sites that wereplanted in 2012. Prior to site selection, a baseline patent tong survey of oyster abundance on potential
study sites was conducted in 2014 by the Ken Paynter Lab at the University of Maryland. Based upon
the resulting data, we delineated eight 3.1-acre study sites for our work. The selected areas provided
oyster tissue biomass densities ranging from 2.7 to 98.4 g dry weight (DW) per square meter at the timeof initial surveys (Kellogg et al. 2016).
Results
Rates of sediment nutrient exchange, denitrification, and oxygen exchange were variable, but higher
rates of denitrification were generally associated with higher oyster biomass (Figure 3) and higher watertemperatures (e.g., the warm season). The effects of light on reef denitrification rates were small when
the whole data set was examined.

6One initial experiment indicated that denitrification rates on oyster reefs are greatly enhanced relative to
non-reef core sediments. Two later experiments clearly showed that incubations of reef sediment alone(no oysters or oyster shell) resulted in underestimates of reef denitrification (Figure 4); incubations ofoyster clumps alone showed that a considerable proportion of the denitrification was associated with theoyster reef community. A community approach (oysters plus sediment), however, is the most efficacious
way to estimate denitrification in an oyster reef. Under warm summer conditions, the total denitrification
estimate for oyster biomass < 75 g DW m-2 was 57 lbs. acre-1 y-1, and increased to 160 lbs. acre-1 y-1 forbiomass > 225 g DW m-2. Denitrification rates observed during colder seasons were lower than inwarmer seasons, but do have the potential to increase annual rates up to 25-50% above rates for warmer
seasons alone.
In summary, these experiments suggest that nutrient assessments that do not consider the whole benthic
community (reef organisms plus sediment) may underestimate nitrogen removal by microbial
denitrification considerably. For oyster reefs, the effect of illumination is small relative to the hightransformation rates observed for non-photosynthetic biogeochemical pathways. Illumination may be
more important for non-reef sediment incubations. The minimum denitrification rate generated in thisstudy for low oyster biomass levels, 57 lbs. N acre-1 y-1, would translate to an estimated annual removalof ~20,000 lbs. of N in the 350 acres of restoration in Harris Creek. Higher oyster biomass would be
expected to yield higher rates of denitrification, but this conservative estimate is appropriate as a starting
point for extrapolation to other restoration sites.

Figure 3. Sediment-water efflux of N2-N from whole-community incubations for low, medium, and highoyster densities. Averages (± std. dev.) of both dark and light incubations for all May–October incubations
are presented.

7

Figure 4. Comparison of fluxes from tray (intact oyster reef segment) and core samples (oyster reef
sediments only) collected from a restored oyster reef in Harris Creek, MD (Kellogg et al. in revision). Notethe difference in units reported for oxygen and nitrogen fluxes.

8Natural Engineers in Ecosystem Restoration: Modeling Oyster Reef Impacts on
Particle Removal and Nutrient Cycling
L. Harris*, J. Testa, L. Sanford, E. North
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Grant Award period: October 2014–January 2017*
Contact: harris@umces.edu

The overarching goal of this work was to develop and test a modeling tool that can provide quantitative
predictions of ecosystem services related to N removal and oyster biomass production using oyster
restoration metrics such as reef size and oyster planting densities. N cycling, local primary production,and oyster bioenergetics were coupled with an existing oyster reef particle uptake model. This provided
a quantitative link between oyster abundance, reef morphology, and habitat using a simulation
framework, supporting an evaluation of these effects on oyster production and N removal. A web-based
decision-support tool was created for selecting optimal restoration sites and estimating N removal
provided by a given restoration effort.
Methods
To obtain data to validate the oyster filtration component of the model, extensive sampling was
conducted at a restored oyster reef in Harris Creek, Maryland, documenting phytoplankton and seston
dynamics for the duration of a complete tidal cycle. The hydrodynamic/filtration model is forced bycurrent velocities derived from a Choptank River application of the Regional Ocean Modeling System(ROMS), includes oyster sizes and reef sizes characteristic of Harris Creek. The coupled filtration andbiogeochemical processing model (Figure 5) was implemented over a near-annual cycle, andsimulations were made to quantify chlorophyll-a removal rates over the reef, spatial patterns of oyster
biodeposit accumulation, and associated nitrogen transformations associated with restored oyster reefs
versus intact sediments. The model itself connects oyster processes with biogeochemistry via
biodeposition. The oysters concentrate particles via filtration, created packets of high organic material in
the form of biodeposits that combine with settled material to create inputs that are then processed via aseries of detailed, microbially mediated biogeochemical processes.
Results
Field measurements on restored reefs showed a clear signature of oyster filtration at the maximum floodand ebb tides (Figure 6), and provide a snapshot of how water clarity may be enhanced. At these times,
both suspended solids and particle volume concentrations decreased over the reef in the direction of thetide. Model simulation results documented the removal of chlorophyll over an oyster reef, withminimum concentrations occurring furthest downstream on an ebb tide and furthest upstream on a floodtide.
Associated with this chlorophyll-a removal is an accumulation of nitrogen-bearing oyster biodeposits
along the reef, with highest biodeposit thickness occurring on the upstream near end of the reef withrespect to tidal current. Thus, as chlorophyll-a is filtered from the water within the first 100-150 metersof reef, high biodeposit accumulations occur. The magnitude of chlorophyll-a removal by the reef
generally varied between 0 and 50%, with the majority of time during April to October simulating 020% chlorophyll-a removal. Although these removal fractions are not very large, they do represent a
nontrivial estimate of the chlorophyll-a filtering capacity of the reef and associated water column carbon
and nitrogen mass removal through biodeposit production. The roughly 100 hours when >50% of

9chlorophyll-a was removed would represent a substantial loss for ambient phytoplankton material.
Clear patterns emerged from the biodeposition and the subsequent processing of nitrogen on the reef.
When simulated oyster densities (100 oysters m-2) were compared to baseline densities (0 oysters m-2),
the production of ammonium changed from nearly zero to in excess of 25 mmol N m-2 d-1, which is on
the same order of magnitude of ammonium fluxes from mid-Bay anoxic sediments where further
processing of N (nitrification and denitrification) is inhibited. Although nitrate fluxes were not alteredby the presence of oysters and associated biodeposit production, denitrification rates in 100 oysters m-2
simulations were three times the rate of baseline levels. This pattern is consistent with elevateddenitrification rates observed in restored oyster reefs (Kellogg et al. 2013), but the magnitude predictedin the model is much lower than observed.
It is clear that biodeposit production and remineralization within oyster reefs leads to enhanced nitrogen
cycling (both removal and recycling processes), and the model developed here represents those effects.
Currently, the model can be applied to simulate a range of oyster densities and reef sizes at Chesapeake
Bay restoration sites. Interestingly, the rate of increase of ammonium was not overcome bydenitrification fluxes, indicating that in a mass balance context oysters produce a net release of nitrogenfrom biodeposits back to the water column. This recycled inorganic nitrogen is bioavailable forphytoplankton uptake. A future research question will focus on understanding whether the combined
action of reducing phytoplankton concentrations via oyster filtration with the recycling capacity of thereef ultimately results in a whole ecosystem enhancement of nitrogen use efficiency or whether overall
productivity is reduced.

Figure 5. Conceptual model of Nitrogen-Oyster Reef Dynamics Model.

10Figure 6. Water column turbidity measurement at Little Neck oyster reef in Harris Creek (left panel).
Dotted symbols indicate the five sampling locations, which are located along a transect that is oriented 47°
from true north. Optical backscatter turbidity (uncalibrated NTU; right panel) from transects taken on Little
Neck Reef at maximum flood (top) and maximum ebb (bottom).

Nutrient Cycling Discussion
The two projects provide oyster reef nutrient cycling information from two different perspectives. One,Cornwell et al., used a fine-scale empirical approach to measure nutrient flux from direct chemical
analyses of different habitat treatments and then, using observed flux rates, provides extrapolated
estimates of nutrient removal for different areal scales. The other project, Harris et al., used a detailed
model system to simulate particle removal from the water column, biodeposit production, transport, andbiogeochemical nitrogen processing (Figure 7). Empirical data (chlorophyll-a, suspended sediments, andparticle size) were collected over a restored oyster reef to help validate model simulations. The resulting
model can be applied to simulate nutrient processing from a range of oyster reef sizes and live oyster
densities at restoration sites within the Chesapeake Bay. Assessment of variation in nutrient fluxes
relative to oyster restoration methods (e.g., natural shell reefs with planted spat-on-shell versus
constructed substrate reefs with spat-on-shell) and restored reef maturity were beyond the scope of either
study.
In the empirical study (Cornwell et al.), extrapolated N removal rates were estimated to be 57 lbs. N
acre-1 y-1 for low oyster biomass (< 75 g DW m-2), which translates to an estimated annual N removal of~20,000 lbs. of N in the 350 acres of restoration in Harris Creek. Using the particle uptake model (Harris
et al. 2019), estimated N removal from preliminary model simulations (Harris et al. 2019) was 160 lbs.
N acre- yr-1 for oyster densities of 100 m-2. In both cases, nitrogen removal rates were higher for oyster
reef communities relative to adjacent sediments unoccupied by oyster reefs (Figure 7).
Use of controlled experiments and modeling studies to assess ecosystem services is a valuable
component of CBP oyster restoration outcomes (Chesapeake Bay Program 2018). Given that Bay-wide11

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) targets for nitrogen have proven difficult to achieve (Chesapeake
Bay Program 2019), research studies such as these, which quantify N flux relative to oyster restorationand provide independent estimates of N reduction, have the potential to support general resource policy
and management needs.
These projects have provided technical and policy support to specific CBP objectives. Principal
Investigators Cornwell, Kellogg, and Sanford actively participate in the CBP Oyster Best Management
Practices (BMP) Expert Panel for TMDLs, and have informed the development of oyster BMPs using
their empirically determined nutrient flux rates (Cornwell et al 2019). Based on these advances innutrient cycling science and oyster resource management, the BMP Expert Panel is seeking approval foroyster restoration as a CBP-approved BMP for the removal of pollutant nitrogen and phosphorus. The
recommendations are that enhanced denitrification and accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus inliving oyster biomass will add the crediting of oyster restoration nutrient removal to the previously
approved BMP for the aquaculture harvest removal of nutrients. Key to this crediting is the assessmentof the increase of oyster densities and denitrification above background levels, and an understanding of
the relationship between oyster density and nutrient removal. The Harris Creek study is the mostcomprehensive assessment of water quality improvements associated with large-scale oyster restoration
using substrate additions and placement of hatchery-produced oysters.

Figure 7. Conceptual diagram of oyster reef impacts on particle concentration and nutrient cycling. Model
simulations and observations suggest that oyster communities can enhance particle filtration in a boundary
layer just above the reefs, and that this filtration effect is enhanced along the flow path of water as it transits
over the reef. A fraction of the filtered particles (those not assimilated by the oysters) are excreted by theoysters, and can be recycled in bare sediments beneath or adjacent to the reef as well as within the shell/reef
community itself. Nitrogen recycling rates and nitrogen removal rates via denitrification are enhanced in theoyster reef community relative to bare sediments.

12

Macrofaunal Communities Research
Oyster Reef Ecosystem Services: Macrofauna Utilization of Restored Oyster Reefs
M. L. Kellogg1*, P. G. Ross1, K. Paynter2
1
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
2
University of Maryland
Grant Award period: March 2015–February 2019*
Contact: lkellogg@vims.edu

Oyster reefs provide habitat for a variety of macrofaunal species that form the prey base of upper-level
consumers. Macrofaunal sampling sites encompassed the majority of the area in which restoration
activities were conducted within the Harris Creek Oyster Sanctuary in Maryland. Our studies focusedon: 1) understanding the relationship between oyster biomass and the abundance and biomass of
associated macrofaunal species; 2) assessing how these relationships change with season; 3) evaluating
the role of tray-scale (0.1 m2), plot-scale (10 m2), and reef-scale (> 5624 m2) oyster biomass density indetermining associated macrofaunal abundance and biomass; and 4) examining larger-scale patterns inmacrofaunal biomass density within Harris Creek.
Methods
We studied five restoration sites and three control sites that were suitable for restoration but were notsubject to any restoration activities. At restoration sites, juvenile hatchery oysters set on oyster shell(spat-on-shell) were planted directly on the bottom (areas with substratum conditions suitable for oyster
survival and growth without adding hard substrate prior to planting). To control for the influence ofoyster age, we selected only sites that were planted in 2012. Prior to site selection, a patent tong surveyof potential sites was conducted to establish baseline oyster density. We defined the resident
macrofaunal community as all sessile and mobile organisms retained on a 1-mm mesh. To assess
macrofaunal community abundance, diversity, and biomass, divers excavated a 0.1 m2 area of thesubstratum, placed it in life position in a sampling basket lined with 1-mm mesh, replaced it in the
excavated area, allowed it to remain in place for a month, and then collected samples. All oysters andattached and mobile macrofauna retained on a 1-mm mesh sieve were identified to species, and theirabundance and biomass were assessed. For analyses, oyster biomass density was broken down into three
categories: 1) low (< 50.0g DW m-2); 2) medium (50.0-224.9 g DW m-2); and 3) high (≥ 225.0 g DW m2). Low-density treatments had oyster densities less than the target levels defined by Fish GIT metrics
for successful Bay-wide oyster restoration. Medium and high treatments had oyster densities above thetarget success metric.
Results
Results of our studies demonstrate that restored reefs in Harris Creek provide habitat for ~50 different
macrofaunal species (see Appendix 1). The most abundant sessile taxa were the hooked mussel
Ischadium recurvum, the sea squirt Molgula manhattensis, barnacles of the genus Amphibalanus, andsea anemones of the genus Diadumene. The most abundant mobile species included small reef resident
fish (primarily the naked goby Gobiosoma bosc, but also striped blenny Chasmodes bosquianus andskilletfish Gobiesox strumosus), mud crabs Eurypanopeus depressus, polychaete worms Alitta succinea,
and amphipods from several genera (dominated by Melita nitida with significant numbers of Gammarus
mucronatus, Apocorophium lacustre, and Cymedusa compta). Two infauna groups, clams of the genus

13Macoma and the soft shell clam Mya arenaria, were also collected, but abundance estimates may bebiased in some cases because of the sampling methods used.
Samples from Harris Creek that had high oyster biomass (>225 g DW m-2) consistently provided habitatfor >5,000 non-oyster individuals m-2 regardless of season. In spring and fall, non-oyster macrofaunalabundances reached ~10,000 individuals m-2. Biomass of non-oyster macrofauna on high oyster biomass
reefs exceeded 60 g ash free dry weight (AFDW) m-2 in all seasons and was sometimes as high as 150 g
AFDW m-2.
For all sessile and mobile macrofauna, there were significant and complex interactions between theeffects of oyster biomass density and season on the biomass density of each species. In all seasons, total
macrofaunal biomass was greater at high oyster density than at low oyster density (Figure 8). In general,
no consistent seasonal patterns were observed in macrofaunal biomass at medium oyster densities
relative to low and high oyster densities.
Comparison of the effects of oyster biomass density on the biomass of mobile macrofaunal species did
not reveal significant effects of plot-scale (10m2) oyster biomass density for any species. Tray-scale (0.1m-2) and reef-scale (5625 m-2) oyster biomass had a significant effect on all species. In general,macrofaunal density relative to oyster density was similar at intermediate (plot) scales, but was different
and variable on small (tray) and large (reef) scales. Dividing macrofaunal biomass density by oyster
biomass and plotting the resulting ratio against distance from the mouth of the creek revealed asignificant effect of position within the creek on three of the four sessile macrofaunal groups, one
mobile macrofaunal species, and both of the infauna groups. In general, when significant effects wereobserved, macrofaunal density relative to oyster density decreased moving upriver from the mouth ofthe creek.
Overall, our studies confirmed that oyster
reef restoration especially when highbiomass densities of oysters areachieved—leads to increased biomass ofmacrofaunal species; however, local
oyster biomass density is only one of thefactors that significantly influences
macrofaunal community structure andabundance.
Figure 8. Seasonal non-oyster
macrofaunal abundance and biomass
density relative to low (< 50.0g DW m2), medium (50.0-224.9 g DW m-2), andhigh oyster density (≥ 225.0 g DW m-2).
In spring, none of the samples collected
fell in the medium oyster biomass
category. Error bars represent one
standard deviation. Refer to text forresults of statistical analyses of biomass
data.

14

Ecosystem Services of Restored Oyster Reefs in the Lower Chesapeake Bay: Oyster
Populations and Benthic Macrofaunal Communities
R. Lipcius*, R. Seitz, and M. Karp
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Grant Award period: October 2014–September 2018
*Contact: rom@vims.edu

Oysters are vital to the health of Chesapeake Bay. Their reefs create a rich habitat for other species(Harding & Mann 2001) that are essential prey for predators of higher trophic levels (Quan et al. 2010,
Abeels et al. 2012). This project aimed to determine oyster abundance, oyster biomass, and benthic preyutilization of oyster reefs in relation to reef characteristics, environmental conditions, and geographic
location. Samples were collected in the Great Wicomico, Lynnhaven, Piankatank, and Lafayette riversof the lower Western Shore of the Bay in Virginia. Oyster populations in U.S. Army Corps Engineersconstructed sanctuary reefs have been successful for over a decade. A thriving network of relict oyster
reefs was discovered in the Lafayette River. And, benthic macrofaunal communities were enhanced byrestored reefs.
Methods
Oyster population sampling was conducted in the Great Wicomico, Lafayette, and Lynnhaven rivers
using patent tongs. Oysters were enumerated and measured to estimate density and biomass and toassess age structure. Sample data were used to determine reef performance relative to the Fish GIT
restoration success reference points. The success threshold reference points are 15 oysters and 15 g dryweight (DW) per m2, with multiple year classes; and the success target reference points are 50 oysters
and 50 g DW per m2 with multiple year classes.
Macrofaunal sampling was conducted on restoration reefs constructed of planted oyster shell that had
been naturally colonized by wild oysters in the Lynnhaven, Great Wicomico Rivers, Piankatank, andLafayette rivers. Benthic trays were embedded in restored reefs and retrieved after seven weeks, and allorganisms were removed to estimate macrofaunal species diversity, density, and biomass. All collected
macrofauna were retained with a 1.0 mm-mesh liner. Salinity and fine-scale reef rugosity (habitat
complexity) were recorded at sampling sites to serve as environmental correlates. Benthic samples were
sorted and individual organisms were identified, measured, and biomassed. Lastly, oyster volume (dead,live, boxes, clumps) and biomass were measured for each sample.
Results
Most of the constructed shell reefs in the Lynnhaven and Great Wicomico rivers that were sampled in2015 and 2017 met the oyster restoration target density (15 and 50 oysters m-2) and biomass (15 and 50
g DW m-2) reference points (Table 2). Exceptions included a few sanctuary reefs in the Great Wicomicothat may have been poached and a small group of reefs in the Lynnhaven that were in a high-energy area
where the reefs were destroyed by a tropical storm. The reefs in the Great Wicomico were nearly 15
years post construction, and those in the Lynnhaven were nearly 10 years old. Oyster populations on thereefs were composed of multiple year classes and, with the observed density and biomass, thereby met
Fish GIT metrics for successful restoration performance. In the Lafayette River, we identified, for the
first time, a network of natural relict subtidal oyster reefs composed of multiple year classes at highdensity and biomass (50-100 oysters and > 50 g DW m-2). Oysters on these reefs have persisted for morethan five decades, contrary to the paradigm that oyster shell accretion cannot compensate for shell15degradation of oyster reefs. Sample extrapolation suggests that the reef network was composed of morethan 15 million live adult oysters.
Analysis of benthic tray samples identified 66 species of macrofauna (bivalves, crabs, shrimp, worms,
tunicates, amphipods, slipper shells, and fish) on the reefs, and on average 75.6 g AFDW m-2 and 6356
individuals m-2. Polychaetes (particularly Alitta succinea) were most abundant (45.9% of the total
number of organisms collected), followed by amphipods (13.7%) and gastropods (9.8%). Macrofaunal
density and biomass were positively related to local reef oyster density (Figure 9). Macrofaunal biomass
and total density (as well as density of reef resident fish, polychaetes, mud crabs, and mussels) werepositively related to live oyster volume, but not with rugosity measurements or salinity. Salinity was
negatively related to macrofaunal density.
Restored oyster reefs have the potential to be productive habitats, and this potential varies with salinity.
Our results suggest that habitat quality and utilization of reefs will be enhanced when habitat complexityof restored oyster reefs is high (Karp et al. 2018). Restored oyster reefs can thus serve as productive
habitats by enhancing a diverse suite of invertebrates that subsequently subsidize upper trophic levels,
including commercially valuable finfish and the blue crab.

Figure 9. Relationship between oyster density and (left) macrofaunal density and (right) macrofaunalbiomass, a strong predictor from the mixed-model analysis.

16

Table 2. Average estimates of live oyster density and biomass for each reef within the rivers (Lafayette,
Lynnhaven, Great Wicomico) in 2015 and 2017. Yellow cells indicate compliance with Fish GIT thresholdgoal (15 oysters per m2, 15 g DW per m2), green cells indicate compliance with Fish GIT target goal (50oysters per m2, 50 g DW per m2).

17

Macrofaunal Communities Discussion
Both macrofaunal community studies addressed spatial variability and found significant effects ofoysters on macrofaunal communities, but the spatial scales were different. Kellogg et al. examinedvariability in the macrofaunal community along a single 7-km river continuum, and Lipcius et al.
studied macrofauna in four lower-Bay tributaries along an approximately 100-km reach of the Bay
mainstem. Aside from the oyster population assessment conducted by Lipcius et al., similar sampling
methods were used in both projects to quantify macrofaunal communities (namely, benthic settlement
trays embedded in the reef) relative to oyster abundance and biomass metrics, and a similar suite ofmacrofaunal organisms was encountered. Additional differences in the two projects were theexamination of seasonal effects by Kellogg et al. and habitat-complexity effects by Lipcius et al.
Although both studies sampled restored oyster shell reefs, the restoration methods were not necessarilyequivalent. Kellogg et al. worked on reefs that had been planted with spat-on-shell (SOS) three years
prior, and Lipcius et al. sampled shell reefs 10 to 15 years old that had been colonized by wild oysters.
Due to differences in reef maturity and environmental conditions (e.g., salinity), it is impossible tocompare the effect of oyster restoration methodology (planted hatchery SOS vs. natural recruitment on
new reefs) on the macrofaunal community. Neither study examined macrofaunal communities on reefs
that had been restored with alternative (non-oyster shell) substrate material. A seven-fold difference inmacrofaunal productivity has been observed on stone riprap revetments compared to infaunal
productivity in soft sediment, with non-oyster macrofaunal diversity and production positively related tooyster production (Seitz et al. 2019).
Most important to oyster restoration is that both studies found that overall macrofaunal biomass
increased with oyster biomass (Figure 10). This suggests that if restoration is successful at sustaining
elevated oyster biomass, then elevated macrofaunal biomass would be expected. Both oyster and nonoyster biomass are key factors in assessing reef productivity, because they represent the amount of preytissue available to higher trophic levels. In addition, increased oyster biomass leads to increased
biodeposition, which in turn supports deposit-feeding organisms. Because benthic macrofauna form alarge proportion of the diet of demersal fish, increased macrofaunal biomass could directly increase
production of fish species by expanding foraging opportunities. Thus, relative to habitat management
and policy objectives in general, and specific to CBP fish habitat and oyster outcomes, both studies
indicate that oyster restoration provides enhanced foraging habitat and associated macrofauna, which
implies that increasing the biomass of oysters through restoration activities could provide added fish
production benefits. These findings may be useful in supporting ecosystem-based fishery managementin the Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program 2018).
A significant component of the Lipcius et al. work was focused on assessment of oyster populations on
restoration sites in selected Virginia tributaries, which is directly aligned with Chesapeake Bay oyster
restoration policy goals and objectives. Overall, observed oyster densities at most sites exceeded theFish GIT restoration success target of 50 oysters m-2. This study also showed that in Virginia, settlementof wild oysters on restored sites can sustain elevated oyster densities for long periods of time if
restoration sites are designed correctly and are protected from commercial exploitation. High densities
and multiple year classes of wild oysters were also observed on higher-salinity unrestored reef habitatthat had been protected from anthropogenic disturbance for several decades. This finding was significant
because it indicates that native oyster populations can indeed persist for long time periods, which is18

contrary to the paradigm that oyster shell accretion cannot compensate for shell degradation or diseasemortality in lower portions of the Chesapeake Bay.

Figure 10. Relationship between oyster biomass and non-oyster macrofaunal biomass with linear regression
lines from two studies, lower Chesapeake Bay (filled circles, dark blue line) and upper Chesapeake Bay(open squares, light blue line). Using log-transformed data, regression lines differed significantly by lower
vs. upper Bay (General Linear Models and Aikaike’s Information Criterion), presumably driven by theoverall salinity gradient.

19Fish and Blue Crab Communities Research
Fish Utilization of Subtidal Mesohaline Oyster Restoration Sites in the ChesapeakeBay
D. Bruce1, J. Lazar1, A. McGowan1, H. Townsend2
1
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
2
NOAA Fisheries
Study period: May 2014–September 2017
Contact: david.bruce@noaa.gov

This study took advantage of two planned large-scale subtidal restoration projects to assess how fish
community composition and abundance may vary on restoration sites and on unrestored reference sites
before and after restoration. We hypothesized that after restoration, fish abundance would be greater ontreatment sites than on reference sites. Fish were collected at oyster sanctuaries within the Little
Choptank and Tred Avon rivers, two mesohaline tributaries on Maryland’s Eastern Shore of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Methods
Two types of restoration treatment sites were sampled: 1) existing oyster shell bottom planted withhatchery oyster spat-on-shell (SOS restoration) and 2) reefs constructed with alternative substrates (SRrestoration) and planted with SOS. Corresponding control sites were: 1) existing shell bottom with nohatchery oysters and 2) hard unstructured bottom with no hatchery oysters. Fish were collected with fivedifferent trap types to maximize the diversity of fish species collected. Traps were baited with macerated
fish and clams. Five traps connected by a line were considered a single observation unit, and replicatelines were fished on treatment and reference sites sampling sites for 24 hours. A limited pilot study was
conducted in 2013 in the Tred Avon River. Full trap sampling began in 2014 at both locations before theonset of restoration activity. Reefs were constructed in 2015 prior to the sampling season, and alltreatment sites were planted with hatchery spat-on-shell in 2016 prior to the sampling season. Treatment
and control sites were sampled monthly during summer. A total of 544 trapline samples were collected
throughout the 2014-2017 study period.
Results
The 2013 pilot study determined that fish trap catch was lowest in May and October, so sampling in
ensuing years occurred June-September. Mean salinity during fish sampling ranged from 9.9 to 13.8
PPT. Overall, a total of 10 reef-resident and transient species were collected on restoration sites(Appendix 1). Eighty-five percent of the total catch (1,867 fish) was composed of adult American eel,
blue crab, oyster toadfish, and white perch. Blue crab was the only taxon with appreciable numbers ofjuveniles collected. Relative abundance estimates were generally low and ranged from 0 to 10.0 fish trap
set-1 (mean = 1.28; se =0.03).
No before/after fish community composition responses to restoration were observed. Responses of
species-specific abundance to restoration were mixed for the four dominant species. Overall, fishabundance on SOS restoration sites did not vary relative to before/after or treatment/control effects. We
did observe restoration effects for constructed SR reef sites, but the results were inconsistent relative tofish species and location.

20

American eel abundance varied relative to SR restoration status in the Little Choptank (Kruskall-Wallis
test; p = 0.0202) with only marginal increases on constructed reefs than on reference sites; abundance
did not vary relative to restoration (p=0.5456) in the Tred Avon. Blue crab and oyster toadfish
abundance varied relative to SR restoration status at both locations (p ≤ 0.0281), and abundance was
generally lower on constructed reefs than on reference sites. When juvenile and adult blue crabs wereseparated, abundance for both life stages on unstructured SR reference sites was significantly greater (p≤ 0.0003) than on constructed reefs in the Little Choptank, but there was no difference (p ≥ 0.2270) in
the Tred Avon. It is possible that for blue crabs and oyster toadfish, the traps themselves may serve as
structured habitat on unrestored sites and may be become less attractive when placed on restored reefs.
Abundance of white perch did not vary relative to SR restoration (P ≥ 0.3294) at either location.
To gain insight on structural attributes of oyster restoration, we used multibeam sonar bathymetry datato assess habitat complexity at sample sites. In both the Little Choptank and Tred Avon sanctuaries,
habitat roughness for SOS-only reef treatment sites and all reference sites was low and similar (Figure11). However, unlike SOS treatment sites, for the four SR reefs sites at both locations, the averageincrease in habitat complexity after reef construction was 1232.2%. For American eel, greater
abundance values were associated with greater complexity values (Spearman Rank Correlation; r =+0.29; p = 0.0021; Figure 12) on SR sites. Conversely, lower abundance was associated with lower
complexity for both oyster toadfish (r = -0.23; p < 0.0013) and blue crab (r = -0.45; p < 0.0001). White
perch relative abundance was generally similar across the range of complexity values (r = +0.01; P=
0.8685) at experimental sites.
An unintended consequence of the habitat complexity information is that from a structural perspective
there were only a small number of restoration sites that differed from unrestored conditions, resulting ina relatively low sample size of four replicate reference sites and four replicate constructed reef
treatments at the two locations.
In summary, the response of mobile species to oyster restoration is complex and may vary relative torestoration methodology, location, and by species-specific foraging behaviors or general habitat
preferences. Results suggest that even among the benthic-oriented species collected in this study,
inherent mobility linked to foraging or other behaviors, and gear selectivity, make habitat and site
affinities difficult to quantify.

21

Figure 11. Structural habitat complexity at restoration and unrestored reference sites in the Little Choptank
River and Tred Avon River oyster sanctuaries. The Vector Ruggedness Measure was derived frommultibeam sonar bathymetry grids. Both Little Choptank Substrate Reef treatments and Tred Avon
Substrate Treatment 2 were constructed of stone (152 mm min. dimension). Tred Avon Substrate Reef
Treatment 1 was constructed of double crushed mixed shell from commercial seafood processors.

22

Figure 12. Relative abundance (CPUE) of selected species relative to habitat complexity at constructed
substrate reefs and reference sites 2015–2017. Diamond symbols are mean values. Statistical parameters arefor the Spearman Correlation test.

23

Oyster Reef Ecosystem Services: Finfish Utilization and Trophic Linkages

M. L. Kellogg*, P. G. Ross
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Grant Award period: March 2015–February 2019
*Contact: lkellogg@vims.edu

Our project focused on determining the impacts of oyster reef restoration on finfish in the Harris Creekoyster sanctuary in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay. As a preliminary step, we examined
the utility of using trawls in place of gillnets to sample finfish. The primary focus of our study was to
examine patterns in finfish utilization and finfish diets on restored reefs, non-restored reef sites, andadjacent soft sediment habitats. Our study sought to answer two fundamental questions: 1) Are transient
fish species found in greater abundance on restored oyster reefs than on non-restored sites or adjacent
soft sediment habitats, and 2) Are the fish caught on oyster reefs feeding on the prey species commonly
found in oyster reef habitats?
Methods
Small resident finfish were sampled with benthic trays embedded in reefs with low, medium, and highoyster densities in Harris Creek as part of the related macrofaunal study described above. Trawl andgillnet gear comparison sampling occurred in May, September, and October 2015 in Harris Creek andthe nearby Tred Avon River oyster sanctuary. Habitat-specific gillnet sampling occurred in Harris
Creek, May through October, in 2016 and 2017. Collections were made on 1) restored shell reefs thatwere planted with hatchery oyster SOS in 2012, 2) unrestored shell reefs, and 3) adjacent non-reef (sand,sand/mud) habitat. White perch and striped bass were selected for diet studies because they arecommercially and/or recreationally important species, benthic organisms frequently form a significant
portion of their diets, and sample sizes were sufficient to make diet analyses meaningful. For the dietstudies, a minimum of 25 fish were measured and weighed in each sample, and guts were excised andpreserved for laboratory analyses. All species found in guts were identified to lowest practicaltaxonomic level and their wet weight was determined.
Results
We found that trawl samples were highly variable and that the diets of finfish caught in trawls tended tobe different than those caught in gillnets. In trawl samples, prey taxa associated with oyster reefs were
either absent from fish guts, or at orders of magnitude lower than in gillnet samples. These data,
combined with the fact that gillnet samples are collected directly from oyster reef habitats rather thanfrom adjacent sites, suggest that gillnet sampling is more appropriate than trawl sampling for
determining the effects of oyster reef restoration on finfish abundance and diet.
For small reef resident fish (blennies and gobies) collected in reef-embedded benthic trays, biomass
alone was consistently higher in samples with medium and high oyster biomass density. Fish biomass
was also significantly higher in fall than in all other seasons. Gillnets collected 12 transient and no reefresident species on restored oyster reefs. White perch and striped bass were the dominant demersal
species collected on reef habitats, and spot was the most frequent species collected on non-reef habitat.
Of the species captured, only white perch tended to have higher relative abundance in reef habitats thanin adjacent non-reef habitats. Using only data from shell-reef sites (restored and unrestored), we foundthat restoration status had no significant effect on relative abundance of white perch or striped bass.

24

The diets of both striped bass and white perch differed from those commonly reported for these two
species in the Chesapeake Bay. In contrast to previous studies of striped bass diets in the Chesapeake
Bay, fish prey commonly accounted for <20% of their diet in Harris Creek. Mysids formed a substantial
part of the diet of smaller (≤ 200 mm) striped bass but were rarely found in larger fish (> 200 mm). In
contrast, blue crabs were a significant part of the diet of larger striped bass but not of smaller ones.
White perch in Harris Creek commonly consumed the sea squirt, Molgula manhattensis, a species
reported as part of in their diet. White perch diets also relied heavily upon other species commonly
found on oyster reefs including mud crabs, mussels, gobies, and blennies (Figures 13 and 14). Overall,our data suggest that restored oyster reefs provide significant prey resources for white perch, and mayalter the foraging habits of striped bass.

Figure 13. Mean abundance of selected reef-resident prey species across habitats in Harris Creek in
October 2017. Error bars represent one standard deviation.

Figure 14. Seasonal diet composition of white perch based on data from 2016 and 2017.

25

Ecosystem Services of Restored Oyster Reefs in the Lower Chesapeake Bay:
Importance for Blue Crabs and Finfish
R. Lipcius*, R. Seitz, B. Pfirrmann, and K. Longmire
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Grant Award period: October 2014–September 2017
*Contact: rom@vims.edu

This project examined the importance of restored oyster reef habitats for finfish and blue crabs intributaries of the lower Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Our specific objectives were to 1)
examine juvenile blue crab survival on oyster reefs, 2) quantify finfish diet and use of oyster reefs andnon-reef habitats, and 3) investigate scavenging of oysters by reef predators under the hypothesis thatoyster carrion move up the food web to higher trophic levels rather than being decomposed by bacteria.
Methods
Relative survival of juvenile blue crabs was quantified on structured oyster reef habitat and unstructured
soft-bottom in the York River, Virginia, in the summer of 2017. In this field experiment, juvenile crabs
were tethered to the bottom at shallow subtidal sites, and an underwater camera system was used torecord predation activity during 24-hour trials.
Relative abundance and finfish diet metrics were determined from multi-mesh experimental gillnet
samples on constructed oyster shell reefs and unstructured bottom in the Lynnhaven River. Fish were
sampled 2-3 times per month from April to October 2016. Three sites were fished simultaneously (1 net
per site), and the order in which sites were visited was randomized on each sampling date. Nets were left
to soak approximately 2 hours. We recorded the length and weight of all individuals captured, and thestomachs of a subset of individuals (5-10 individuals per species per gill net) were preserved forlaboratory diet analysis. To estimate daily consumption, we conducted two 24-hour sampling events.
Multiple gill nets were deployed at one representative oyster reef and one representative control site.
Gill nets were set and checked repeatedly within 4-hour periods for approximately 24 hours. Upon each
net retrieval, non-filter-feeding fishes were collected and stored on ice for later gut content analysis.
Consumption rates were modeled from stomach fullness data and literature based gastric evacuation
parameters.
To test the role of scavengers in dead oyster consumption, we created a study emulating different
methods of death to oysters and examined scavenger feeding behavior using an underwater four-camera
video system. The dead oyster treatments were 1) crushed shells and 2) unbroken but gaping shell
valves. For both treatments, intact oyster tissue was retained with the shells.
Results
Juvenile blue crab survival was more than three-fold higher in oyster reef habitat (52.6%) compared tobare sand (15.0%). The major successful predators were the northern pufferfish in the oyster reef trials
and adult blue crabs in the sand trials. Juvenile crab survival also tended to increase with size, as
expected. The high survival rate on oyster reefs suggests that reefs provide refuge from predationpressure. With continued seagrass depletion in the Chesapeake Bay, restored oyster reefs could provide
an alternative nursery to sustain blue crab populations.
In the Lynnhaven River fish sampling, the most abundant benthic-feeding fishes were spot (Leiostomus

26

xanthurus), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), and Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus).
Overall catch of these species in oyster reef habitat was reduced relative to unstructured bottom, but
species-level dietary responses to habitat type varied. For example, benthic prey dominated the diet of
all three species in both habitats (>75% by weight), and prey items enhanced by restored reefs
contributed prominently to silver perch diet (30% by weight), but six times less for spot (< 5% byweight; Figure 15). The estimated consumption rate of silver perch foraging in oyster reef habitat
significantly exceeded that in unstructured bottom habitat, whereas other fish species were unaffected.
Restored oyster reefs act as valuable foraging habitat for silver perch (Figure 15), and promote a key
trophic link in coastal systems. Estimating enhancement of fisheries production by reefs requiresconsidering species-specific trophic dynamics and habitat use.
In experiments examining video footage of oyster scavenging, there was a similar suite of scavengers forevery trial regardless of oyster size or treatment. The most common scavengers were naked gobies(Gobiosoma bosc), striped blennies (Chasmodes bosquianus), feather blennies (Hypsoblennius hentz),
mud crabs (Eurypanopeus depressus and Panopeus herbstii), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), andeastern mud snails (Tritia obsoleta). Gobies were always the first species to arrive at a trial, closely
followed by blennies, mud crabs, and snails. Blue crabs were consistently the last species to arrive andconsumed the most total oyster tissue. In crushed oyster treatments, gobies, blennies, and mud crabs
typically tore off small pieces of oyster flesh, and when blue crabs appeared, they usually consumed theremaining flesh. In gaping oyster treatments, gobies, blennies, mud crabs, and snails would approachgaping oysters but were unable to open the shell. Nearly all gaping trials required a large blue crab tofacilitate oyster consumption by smaller scavengers. With only a few exceptions, total trial durationmeans indicated that oysters were generally consumed within two hours for gapers and under half anhour for crushed oysters. In opposition to the paradigm that oyster carrion falls to the detrital pool, deadand dying oysters are consumed within one day (or less) by scavengers. This has major implications foranalyses of the Chesapeake Bay food web. Consumption of dead and dying oysters by fish, crabs, andsnails demonstrates that oyster reefs can significantly enhance blue crab and finfish production at higher
trophic levels.
Figure 15. Percent
contribution byweight of preyhabitat categories
to the diet of silver
perch (Bairdiellachrysoura) andspot (Leiostomus
xanthurus),
estimated fromstomach content
data taken during
peak feeding hours(1 a.m.–9 a.m.; 24hour survey).
‘Both’ indicates prey types found in both habitats types; ‘Reef-enhanced’ indicates prey types found in higher
abundance or biomass on oyster reefs compared to unstructured control bottom; ‘Control-enhanced’ indicates
prey types found in higher abundance or biomass in unstructured control bottom. ‘Unknown’ used forunidentified material with uncertain habitat origin.

27

Pathways to Production: An Assessment of Fishery Responses to Oyster Reef
Restoration and the Trophic Pathways That Link the Resource to the Reef
S. McIninch* and D. McCulloch
Virginia Commonwealth University
Grant Award period: August 2014–July 2017
*Contact: spmcinin@vcu.edu

Oyster reefs throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed make up a small fraction of the benthic habitat
they once covered. This has an obvious negative impact on the oyster fishery but also reduces otherecosystem services supplied by robust reefs. Our research was designed to understand the relationshipbetween constructed/restored reef habitats and fish communities. Our objectives were to documentchanges in fish diversity, density, size, and diet relative to restored oyster reef habitat. Quantifying
impacts of oyster restoration on fish community parameters would benefit the policy makers andmanagers that strive to manage and protect our resources.
Methods
A combination of traditional and novel approaches to data collection was used to assess fish community
dynamics associated with different habitat types. Benthic fish traps and multipanel gillnets were used toassess fish diversity and density on three different restored reefs, off-reef habitats (unstructured habitatnear the associated reef habitats), and outside habitat (unstructured habitat outside the reef complex).
Restored reefs were constructed from various combinations of stone and oyster shell rubble, reef balls,
and shell mounds. Three unbaited fish traps containing oyster shell substrate were set for two weeks on
the different habitat treatments. Multipanel experimental gillnets were set on the habitat treatments forthree hours during day and night periods approximately every three weeks from April–October, 2015–2017 (n=84 gill net sets).
Captured fishes were identified, weighed, and measured before release or processing. Hydroacoustic
data were collected (same site locations) to acquire a better understanding of fish density variation
among habitat types and during day and night conditions. Hydroacoustic density data and the gillnet
species composition data were analyzed to assess species structure, diversity, and abundance on and off
restored oyster reefs. An additional 137 hydroacoustic sites were randomly selected to assess fishdensity as it relates to distance from reef habitat. Trophic assessments were made from a subsample ofnet-captured fishes representing different feeding guilds (planktivores, benthivores, and piscivores).
Stable isotope analysis was also performed on fishes and decapods to assess variation in carbon source
and trophic levels within the oyster reef community.
Results
Benthic fish trap results indicated that relative abundance of reef-resident fish and total organisms(inclusive of crabs and shrimp) was significantly greater on restored reef habitats than either of the nonstructured habitats (off-reef and outside-reef complex). On-reef fish diversity was significantly greaterthan the fish diversity in off-reef and outside-reef habitats. Numerically, mud crabs, naked gobies, blue
crabs, silver perch, and oyster toadfish made up 87% of the total trap catch.
Southern kingfish was the only demersal species that showed significant abundance differences between
habitat types, being found in higher numbers on unstructured habitat. Fish relative abundance fromgillnet samples did vary significantly on a diel cycle, with greater catch during night-time sets. Species28richness was highest on reef habitat (23 species), followed by off-reef (20 spp) and outside-reef (16 spp).
Reef habitat had seven unique species associated with it, while off-reef habitat had four, and the outsidereef habitat had one (Figure 16). However, the three habitat types shared 14 species, demonstrating
similarity in the overall fish community.
Shannon-Weiner diversity index from gillnet samples varied significantly by habitat type and temporal
period. The greatest diversity of fishes was observed on outside-reef complex sites followed by restored
reefs and off-reef sites. Nighttime samples had the greatest species diversity at all habitats, and thegreatest difference between night and day samples was observed on restored reefs. Numerically,menhaden and Atlantic thread herring composed 79% of the total gillnet catch. For the non-clupeid
species, striped bass, Atlantic croaker, bluefish, spot, and southern kingfish composed 81% of the catch.
Relative abundance of large and small (total length </> 46 mm) hydroacoustic targets did not vary
relative to temporal period or by habitat type. However, proximity analysis suggests a higher abundanceof large acoustic targets within the reef complex compared to outside.
Of the 599 gillnet caught specimens, 25% had empty stomachs. Of stomachs containing prey items, 39%
contained fish, 34% detritus/sediment, 11% crustaceans, 9% polychaetes, 5% bivalves, and 2%
contained miscellaneous non-prey material. Fish caught on unstructured habitat had approximately thesame percentage of empty and full stomachs, whereas more than 60% of fish caught on reef habitat had
empty stomachs. Overall, identification of gut contents (especially fish tissue) was difficult to resolve
due to variable stages of digestion. This increased the difficulty in forming the direct connection fromthe many available reef residents (gobies, blennies, etc.) to the predatory fishes that may frequent reef
habitats. Species containing items commonly inhabiting oyster reefs (mud crabs, mussel, polychaetes)
include Atlantic croaker, black seabass, bluefish, cobia, spadefish, and striped bass. All of the bluefish,
striped bass, and cobia with reef-associated items consumed were in the juvenile/subadult size range.
Stable isotope analyses suggest there are at least two major sources of carbon (C) in the trophic pathway.
The close proximity of piscivores to planktivores (δ13C) suggest a shared organic matter source of
likely autochthonous primary productivity. Signatures from crabs, shrimps, and benthivores suggest
other pathways that may include an allochthonous C source from upriver or adjacent wetland/marsh
source, and/or from an oyster reef source.

29

Figure 16. Species composition from gillnet collections by habitat type.
*Denotes species only caught during the day.
**Denotes species only caught at night.

30

Application of Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar to the Study of Oyster Reef
Ecosystem System Services
M. B. Ogburn*, A. H. Hines
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Grant Award period: February 2015–January 2018
Contact: ogburnm@si.edu

The value of oyster reefs as habitat for other species, including commercially and recreationally
important finfish and crabs and the forage species they depend on, is a critical ecosystem service thatremains poorly understood in the Chesapeake Bay. Furthermore, assessing the habitat quality of oyster
reefs in comparison with fished reefs and unrestored sanctuary reefs is critical to understanding theeffectiveness of oyster restoration. Several studies have focused on assessing the value of oyster habitat
using traditional fisheries sampling methods. Our aim was to apply a different technology, highresolution Dual Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON acoustic camera), to conduct 1) a study of fish
trap encounter and capture efficiency rates and 2) a before-after, control-impact (BACI) study of trapindependent finfish and crab abundance on experimental restoration sites. We also developed aqualitative index of oyster reef habitat quality from photographic images and compared habitat metrics
on restored and unrestored locations inside and outside of three oyster sanctuaries and in one harvested
tributary in the Choptank River Complex, Maryland.
Methods
We used the DIDSON system to record encounters of finfish and blue crabs with baited black sea bass
traps in the Tred Avon River oyster sanctuary, Maryland. We conducted 2.5-hour daytime and 24-hourdeployments. Once traps were retrieved, the contents were counted and measured. For DIDSON videos,
we recorded the rate of occurrence of fish >15 cm total length and crabs >12.7 cm carapace width(individuals hour -1 within the video frame), the trap encounter rate (individuals hour -1 passing within
0.5 m of the trap), the trap entrance rate (individuals hour-1 entering the trap), and the capture efficiency(percent of individuals entering the trap that remained when the trap was retrieved).
For trap-independent studies of restoration sites, the DIDSON was deployed monthly from June to
October 2015–2017 to record finfish and crab abundance on Tred Avon River restoration reefs andcontrol sites. Restoration treatments included two DIDSON replicates at 1) reefs constructed ofalternative substrates and 2) natural shell reefs, both planted with hatchery oyster spat-on-shell.
Corresponding control treatments included two replicates of 1) unstructured sand/mud sites and 2)
natural shell reefs, both with no planted oysters. Substrate reefs were constructed in 2015 prior to datacollection, and all restoration sites were planted with oysters in 2016. Two replicate DIDSON recordings
were conducted on each of the eight sites per month.
Qualitative video-based habitat scoring was conducted at the Harris Creek oyster sanctuary, where
restoration is complete; at the Little Choptank River and the Tred Avon River sanctuaries, where
restoration is in progress; and at Broad Creek, a non-restored but productive commercial harvest area. In
each tributary, stratified-random sampling was used to select 25 sites expected to be naturally occurring
oyster reef and 25 sites expected to be anthropogenic oyster reef based on available oyster habitat GIS
layers. With this sampling strategy, the survey was not biased by only selecting restored reef sites. For
example, the Harris Creek sites were located both inside and outside the sanctuary boundary, and on
both restored and unrestored habitat. Video and still imagery were collected with three frame-mounted

31

GoPro cameras. Sites were assigned a habitat score of 0-3 (Figure 17) based on the percent cover of hardsubstrate and fouling organisms, and the height of hard substrate observed in the imagery.
Results
The DIDSON system provided novel data on finfish and crab behavior and abundance that we could nothave obtained using other gear types, including much higher numbers of fish and crabs than were
captured in traps. There was a positive relationship between occurrence rate and trap encounter rate, but
trap catch and capture efficiency were very low in both the 2.5-hour and 24-hour deployments. The rate
at which individuals visible in the camera frame encountered the trap was positive for both fish (r2=0.50)
and crabs (r2=0.60), suggesting that trap encounter rate was associated with the local abundance of fish
and crabs. Fish (r2=0.61), but not crabs, also entered traps more frequently when they were moreabundant. Nothing was collected in the 2.5-hour daytime deployments, and for the 24-hour deployments,
only one white perch of 13 fish (8%) and one blue crab of 16 crabs (6%) were observed entering a trap
remained when the trap was fished. These results suggest that black sea bass traps provided relative
abundance data that reflected the local abundance of fish and possibly crabs, but catch rates and capture
efficiency were low for species occurring in the Tred Avon River.
There were no consistent patterns in DIDSON video counts of fish and crabs relative to oyster
restoration in the Tred Avon. Counts from both constructed substrate reefs and natural shell reefs with
spat-on-shell were generally similar to control sites during all years. Seasonal patterns were observed,
however, as counts on all sites and years were generally greatest July through September. Althoughfinfish species were not easily identified in the sonar data, GoPro camera deployments indicated that themost common fish species >15 cm total length observed were striped bass, white perch, and northern
puffer (especially in 2015). The lack of relationship between fish and crab abundance and restoration
may be related in part to minimal differences between habitat structure of restored and unrestored reefs
at the study site (see Bruce et al.) and the lack of reef-resident fish recorded in sonar videos.
Findings from our work with the DIDSON acoustic cameras indicated that demersal finfish and blue
crabs are using restored and natural oyster reefs, but are also using adjacent habitats such that there are
not strong patterns in abundance relative to habitat type. Nevertheless, methods are valuable fordocumenting the abundance of commercially and recreationally important species in a way that is
independent of the biases inherent in trap and net sampling.
Video-based habitat scoring demonstrated that Harris Creek had the highest percentage of randomly
selected sites with high-quality reef habitat (a score of 3; Figure 18) with 40%, followed by the Little
Choptank (14%), Tred Avon (6%), and Broad Creek (2%). Overall, habitat quality scoring varied
substantially within each tributary, such that 31 sites had the highest-quality habitat score of 3, 34 scoreda 2, 97 scored a 1, and 36 scored a 0. These results clearly show that a fully restored sanctuary tributary(Harris Creek) contains substantially more high-quality oyster reef habitat than harvest areas (Broad
Creek) and partially restored sanctuaries (Little Choptank and Tred Avon). Additionally, the number ofsites with vertical reef structure at least as tall as the shell height of a harvestable oyster was 20 times
higher in the Harris Creek sanctuary than in the adjacent commercially fished Broad Creek.
The rapid qualitative assessment method for oyster reef habitat quality we developed has great potential
to inform monitoring and management of oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay and in other regions with
subtidal oysters. Using these techniques, we were able to detect clear differences in habitat-quality-

32

based oyster reef restoration and fishery management status, but additional applications could include
documenting temporal changes, new site selection, more efficient monitoring effort, and communicationof actual ground conditions.

0

1

2

3

Figure 17. Examples of qualitative benthic habitat scoring based on underwater imagery. Scores are
numerals in upper left corner of these images.

33

Figure 18. Qualitative benthic habitat scores for one fished tributary (Broad Creek) and three tributaries
containing oyster sanctuaries in the Choptank River Complex, Maryland, in 2017. Note that only Harris
Creek had fully constructed restored reefs at the time of sampling.

34

Fish Communities Discussion
There is considerable management value in understanding the affinity of fishes to specific habitat types
and how vital rates and fish production may vary relative to habitat type (NMFS 2010, Chesapeake Bay
Program 2019). Documentation of the relative quality of different habitats can support protection orconservation designations and restoration activities, and can be incorporated into regional stock
assessments. All five of the studies presented here examined fish utilization of oyster restoration sites
relative to other habitat types. As a preliminary step to understanding the value of oyster habitat relative
to fish production, three studies examined how fish diets may be linked to restored oyster reefs.
Oyster reef sampling collected reef-resident and transient species. Resident species use reefs forforaging, reproduction, and as nursery habitat; the most frequently collected taxa were naked goby,
oyster toadfish, skilletfish, and striped blenny. Transient species primarily use reef habitat for foraging;the most frequent taxa collected on reefs were Atlantic croaker, blue crab, silver perch, spot, and striped
bass. Although sampling was not focused on collecting early life stages, some juveniles were collected;
these included black seabass, cobia, gray snapper, summer flounder, and white perch.
There were spatiotemporal scale differences among the different studies. Locations of fish studies were
distributed throughout the long axis of the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2). Of the six study sites, Harris
Creek, Little Choptank, Piankatank, and Tred Avon rivers are in the mesohaline zone, and the York andLynnhaven rivers are in the polyhaline zone. Spatial variation in fish abundance or diet relative to oyster
restoration was not a specific focus of these studies; however, Bruce et al. observed different abundance
responses to restoration at two different locations. Restoration reef age was not a specific response
variable in these studies, but age did vary within and among them. Among studies, restoration site age
ranged from 0 years (pre-restoration) to up to 10 years post restoration. Kellogg et al. observed
significant and complex interactions among seasonal, annual, and restoration (restoration/control)
effects, but aside from generally greater white perch catch rates in September and October samples,
there were no consistent seasonal patterns in abundance of other species sampled. Bruce et al., Lipcius etal., and Ogburn and Hines generally observed maximal fish abundance in mid- to late-summer samples.
All five studies compared relative abundance of fishes on restored reefs and on unrestored sites.
Using benthic tray sampling on control sites and restoration sites with different oyster densities, Kellogg
et al. observed that numbers of small reef-resident fish generally increased with live oyster abundance,
indicating that if restoration successfully increases oyster numbers, then reef-resident species will also
increase. McIninch, using small-mesh fish traps containing oyster shell, also observed greater abundanceof small reef-resident species on restoration reefs than on control sites.
For larger transient fish sampled with traps, gillnets, and acoustics, there was no strong and consistentdemonstration of greater abundance on restoration reefs than on unrestored control sites. Variability inthe response to restoration may depend on habitat preferences of different fish species, season,
restoration type, location-specific environmental conditions, and sampling gear selectivity. From gillnet
samples, Kellogg et al. observed that white perch had the most consistent pattern of enhancement
associated with oyster reef restoration. For all months except May, white perch catch per unit effort(CPUE) tended to be higher for on-reef samples than for off-reef samples with significantly higher
values in both September (p = 0.001) and October (p = 0.029). No other species showed any consistent
trends across sampling periods. Also using gillnets, Lipcius, Seitz, and Pfirrmann observed overall
reduced catch on restoration sites with some species-specific variation, and McIninch only observed

35significance with one species, and it had a negative response to restoration. Bruce et al., using baited
traps, did not find any differences in abundance between natural shell reefs restored with hatcheryoysters and control sites; however, for constructed substrate reefs in two different tributaries, significant
positive, negative, and neutral responses to restoration were observed for different species at one
location but not the other.
Positive results from oyster restoration were most visible in the increased foraging of some epibenthic
fishes on restored reefs compared to reference conditions (Table 3). Diet and predation studies indicatethat the trophic value of restored reefs may also vary by species. Restored reefs support dense
populations of both mud crabs and small reef-associated fish including gobies and blennies. In Harris
Creek, mud crabs tended to account for a greater portion of the diets of both striped bass (19.10%) andwhite perch (17.90%) caught on restored oyster reefs those caught adjacent to reefs (0.00% and 2.96%,
respectively; Table 3). In addition, gobies and blennies accounted for 14.50% of the diet of white perchcaught on reefs compared to 0.96% for fish caught adjacent to the reef (Kellogg et al.). However, due tohigh variance in the data and the need to account for the number of comparisons made (i.e., Bonferroni
correction), these differences were not statistically significant. In the Lynnhaven River, Virginia, diets ofsilver perch were linked to restored reefs, as silver perch on reefs consumed more than 10 times more
smaller fish than did silver perch in nearby unstructured habitats; they consumed snapping shrimp on
reefs but none in unstructured habitats (both fish and snapping shrimp are reef-associated prey) (Table3). However, diets of spot and Atlantic croaker were not strongly linked to reefs, as Atlantic croaker fed
on prey unassociated with reefs, e.g. polychaetes, in equal percentages in both reef and unstructured
habitats (Table 3). Estimated size of fish, stomach fullness of silver perch, and daily consumption ratesof silver perch were also greater on reefs than on nearby unrestored control sites, suggesting that oyster
reefs may increase foraging of important fisheries species.
Controlled experiments suggest that oysters themselves may support reef community production, as blue
crabs and reef-resident fish species rapidly consume dead oysters, and juvenile crabs survive better on
reefs than unstructured habitats. A survival rate of juvenile blue crab that was three times higher onoyster reef habitats compared to nearby unstructured habitats suggests that reefs have the potential toserve as predation refuges for juvenile blue crabs, as reefs include physical habitat complexity. Thus, as
an alternative to seagrass, oyster reefs could provide an alternative nursery habitat for juvenile blue
crabs, expanding the ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs.
These studies demonstrate that quantifying the relative value of restored oyster reefs as fish and crab
habitat can be accomplished for small reef-resident species but generally not for transient species. For
this reason, habitat-focused management objectives for larger commercial species may not be fully
realized by this work. Fish species, functional groups, and life stages may interact with habitat indifferent ways, and fish sampling gears are notoriously biased (Biro 2013) relative to these elements.
Furthermore, sampling methods and experimental designs that successfully quantify habitat utilization
by a suite of fishes may not necessarily provide adequate estimates of trophic parameters and vice versa.
Species of commercial or recreational interest are usually generalists in their foraging habitats, and thismakes linking reef prey production to fish diet and production especially problematic.
Overall, these studies suggest that future work should focus on specific taxa, functional groups, or life
stages and use sampling methodologies with the fewest biases to address the particular researchquestion.

36

Table 3. Fish Communities Discussion. Percent contribution by weight of fish gut contents for top 2 or 3 fish
species collected at restored reef sites compared to either adjacent unstructured sites (50-200 m distant, upper Bay
study), or nearby unstructured bottom (> 750 m distant; lower Bay study). Upper Bay fish were collected monthly
May–October 2016 and 2017, whereas lower Bay fish were collected monthly April–October 2016 (modified
from Pfirrmann & Seitz 2019). Bold values indicate substantial differences by habitat (e.g., the %weight of thatprey type in one habitat was outside of the 95% confidence interval for the %weight of that prey type in the otherhabitat).
Upper Bay: Harris Creek, MD
Striped Bass White Perch
Rest Adj
Prey Type
Reef Unstr
Crustaceans
Amphipods/Isopods 0.01 6.35
Blue Crabs
22.10 43.10
Mud Crabs
19.10 0.00
Mysids0.19 0.11
Snapping Shrimp 0.00 0.00
Other Shrimps
0.02 0.00
Other/Unknown
1.55 0.00
Fish
Bay Anchovy
10.10 5.31
Gobies/Blennies
5.73 10.20
Other/Unknown
24.30 10.00
Mollusks
Various5.83 6.19
Tunicates
M. manhattensis
4.06 0.01
Worms
Polychaetes
7.09 18.70
Other
Other/Unknown
0.00 0.14

Rest
Reef

Adj
Unstr

Lower Bay: Lynnhaven River, VA
Silver Perch
Spot
Croaker
Rest
Reef

Near
Unstr

Rest
Reef

Near
Unstr

Rest
Reef

Near
Unstr

0.95 1.75
6.84 0.00
17.90 2.96
2.63 3.07
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.27 1.56

0.00 21.77
0.00 6.35
0.00 0.00
4.40 35.75
21.90 0.00
0.27 3.23
5.46 3.61

0.10
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
6.11

0.01
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.00
0.00
2.16

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.73
0.00

0.00
2.50
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.25 0.00
14.50 0.96
5.58 1.15

NANA
2.82 0.00
11.27 1.39

NA
0.00
2.00

NA
0.00
0.00

NA
0.35
2.39

NA
0.00
2.84

9.32

5.18

0.00

0.00

0.36

0.89

14.60 30.78

35.10 49.20

0.00

0.00

7.54

0.00

0.00

2.88

34.10

53.89 13.58

77.87 83.56

67.05 60.98

2.86

0.01

0.00

5.31

12.80

11.89 2.89

14.32

Rest = Restored
Adj Unstr = Adjacent unstructured habitat
Near Unstr = Nearby unstructured habitat
NA = Data not available because Bay Anchovy were included in the "Fish - Other & Unknown" category.

37

0.00

Ecosystem and Economic Modeling
Estimating Ecological Benefits and Socioeconomic Impacts from Oyster Reef
Restoration in the Choptank River Complex, Chesapeake Bay

S. Knoche*, T. F. Ihde
Morgan State University
Award period: January 2017–November 2018
Contact: scott.knoche@morgan.edu

The objective of this project was to explore potential changes in commercial fisheries harvest andregional economic impacts resulting from large-scale oyster reef restoration efforts, within the context ofalternative policy options for managing these new oyster reefs. This work focuses on three Marylandtributaries initially chosen for large-scale oyster restoration—Harris Creek, the Little Choptank River,and the Tred Avon River. An ecosystem-based trophic (i.e., food-web) model was developed and 15year projections were run under management policies that range from preserving the prohibition on
oyster harvest in the restored areas to opening these areas to harvest leading to the oyster population
returning to prerestoration levels. For each policy, estimated commercial fisheries harvests are converted
into dockside revenues. These revenues are then used in regional economic impact modeling to generate
key economic impact measures. This enables a predictive analysis that explores the effect of different
management approaches on seafood harvests and regional economic impacts.
Methods
Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software was used to develop a trophic model that included the main
producers and consumers, including commercial seafood harvesters as top consumers. The EwEsoftware uses a mass-balance approach to estimate group productivity, and accounts for predator-preyinteractions along with fishery removals.
The region modeled (Figure 19, inset hashed area) includes the areas (445.0 km2) where most natural
oyster settlement has historically occurred in the lower Choptank River. Ecopath was used to estimate asnapshot of the trophic flows (Figure 20) and this balanced model was used as a starting point for
Ecosim scenario simulations.
Commercially harvested species in the model include American eel, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic
menhaden, blue crab, eastern oyster, striped bass, catfish (channel, bullhead, and white combined),
gizzard shad, and white perch. Twelve gear-specific commercial fisheries were modeled based on
occurrence in Maryland Department of Natural Resource catch records (2006-2015). These included thetrotline, eel pot, pound net, gillnet, oyster (power dredge, skipjack, hand tongs, dive), and clam (bait)
fisheries.
Seafood harvests were estimated for those groups targeted by commercial fisheries. Landed weight was
based on 2006 Maryland Department of Natural Resource landings (unpublished data, C. Lewis, MD
DNR) corresponding to the start of the modeled timeframe. Landings dollar value was based on 2015
data for all species. Average price/pound was calculated for each fishery by summing the average priceby species weighted by the proportion of each species caught in that gear over a 10-year span (20062015).

38

Figure 19. Study Area. Oyster reef restoration projects in Harris Creek, the Tred Avon River, and the Little
Choptank River are the focus for this analysis and the area included in the model (inset hashed area). Predatorprey relationships and life history information (e.g., growth, age at maturity) of the balanced EwE base model
were based on input from a range of sources including field data specific to the region (Kellogg et al., C. Bonzek,
unpublished ChesMMAP data), an existing EwE model of the Chesapeake (Christensen et al. 2009), and an
existing Atlantis ecosystem model of the Chesapeake (Ihde et al. 2016) in order of preference.

Figure 20. Energy flow diagram of the balanced Ecopath model, including all ecological groups andcommercial fisheries. Relative group node size and line width are quantitative indicators of energy flow
through that group and trophic pathway, respectively. Numbers on y-axis indicate trophic levels.

39

The abundance of oysters and associated filter feeders (i.e., animals that depend on the surface area
provided by oyster growth: anemones, barnacles, hooked mussels, and tunicates) were manipulated
across five scenarios (Table 4) to examine the effect of these organisms on ecological production,
seafood harvested, and regional economic impacts. Harvested biomass estimates from these scenarios
were converted to dockside revenues by applying mean, species-specific prices by fishery to the biomass
harvest estimates. Dockside revenues were linked to IMPLAN regional economic impact modelingsoftware with a custom set of cost functions for the major fisheries in the region. Cost functions weredeveloped for the regional fisheries through semi-structured interviews of 12 commercial seafood
harvesters active in the region. IMPLAN estimates of direct, indirect, and induced economic effects
were then made for each of four key economic measures: sales, labor income, value-added, andemployment.
Table 4. Ecological and management scenarios used in economic impact simulations.

Scenario
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5

Condition
Young restoration reefs in current oyster sanctuaries
Mature reefs with increased oyster biomass in sanctuaries
Mature reefs with increased oyster and associated filter feeder biomass in sanctuaries
Fished down oyster biomass, sanctuaries opened to harvest, and oyster density at
prerestoration levels
Fished down with decreased biomass of oysters and associated filter feeders, sanctuaries
opened to harvest, and oyster density at prerestoration levels

Results
Mature oyster reefs (Scenario 2—S2) support an increase in annual commercially harvested finfish andshellfish biomass of about 45% relative to the current young reef (S1). Mature reefs are predicted toincrease total harvested biomass by about 80% relative to the scenario (S4) in which restored oyster reef
sanctuaries have been fished down to a level that reflects the prerestoration status.
Scenarios 3 and 5 simulate how changes in oyster abundance and associated filter feeders affect fisheries
harvests, and inclusion of filter feeders on oyster reefs increases fisheries harvest by 11% to 17%
relative to the analogous scenarios (S2 & S4) that account for change in oyster biomass alone.
The ecological model predicts large increases in harvests for some commercially important species in
the region. The mature reef with filter feeders scenario (S3) projects an 80% increase in blue crab
harvest relative to the young reef scenario (S1), and a 160% increase in harvest relative to the fisheddown scenario (S5) where the biomass is reduced for both oysters and their associated filter feeders.
Scenario S3 also predicts that white perch harvests will be about 110% greater than that of the young
reef scenario (S1), and more than 650% greater relative to the fished-down with other filter feeders
scenario (S5). The effects on striped bass harvest across all scenarios is predicted to be negligible.
The commercial harvest changes predicted here only account for changes of food availability in thesystem, and does not account for the value of the reef structure itself as refuge from predators. Harvest is
entirely driven by the modeled, scenario-specific changes in the food availability of oysters and the filter
feeders that depend on the increased surface area of oyster shells. Increases in blue crab, for example,
are driven by an increase in prey such as mud crabs, with mud crabs benefitting from increases in theirprey groups (e.g., young oysters). White perch increases are largely driven by the abundance of a40

tunicate that is important in the white perch diet—and tunicates are one of the filter feeding groups that
increased due to additional oyster shell surface area to grow on.
The changes in commercially harvested biomass have the potential to contribute millions of dollars in
additional sales for commercial seafood harvesters each year. The mature reef with associated filter
feeders scenario (S3) is projected to increase annual dockside sales by more than $4.5 million relative tothe young reef scenario (S1) and by about $11 million relative to the fished-down with filter feeders
scenario (S5). These predicted changes in dockside sales are primarily driven by increased blue crab
harvest.
Each dollar generated through the dockside sales received by commercial seafood harvesters has an
economic multiplier effect of 2.07. That is, for each $1.00 of dockside sales, an additional $1.07 of
economic activity is generated in Dorchester and Talbot Counties through inter-industry transactions andadditional spending generated through the increases in employee wages and business owner income.
Accounting for both the initial direct effects of dockside sales and the additional economic activity in
Dorchester and Talbot counties generated by these initial sales, the mature reef with associated filter
feeders scenario (S3) is projected to increase total regional sales by about $10 million relative to theyoung reef scenario (S1) and by about $23 million relative to the fished-down with filter feeders
scenario (S5).
Fisheries managers, commercial seafood harvesters, and other stakeholders are increasingly seeking
information regarding the regional economic impacts resulting from fisheries management decisions.
This modeling effort predicts sizable increases in harvest and regional economic impacts from oyster
reef restoration. Harvest increases and potential regional economic impacts predicted in this project are
specific to the Choptank River region and local economies. Caution is urged with respect to assumptions
about the transferability of these predicted gains to other areas, where other factors not present in the
Choptank ecosystem or surrounding economy may affect harvest and economic impacts.

41

Summary
The primary goal of oyster restoration is to increase oyster abundance; however, given their nature as
ecosystem engineers, successful oyster restoration provides numerous additional ecosystem services.
Oyster reefs, and consequently their restoration, provide structured benthic habitat critical to various life
stages of ecologically and economically important species. In estuaries dominated by fine-grained
sediments, for example, oyster reefs may be the only stable hard bottom that can support primary andsecondary production in addition to other biogeochemical processes, such as nutrient cycling. Ecosystemservices research aims to quantify the added benefits of increasing oyster abundance and reef habitat.
Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration metrics documents (Oyster Metrics Workgroup 2011) haveacknowledged the ecosystem benefits of oyster reefs, but left the designation of specific services as
restoration metrics for a future time, thereby relying primarily on oyster abundance as an indicator for
restoration success. Components of research in the ORES projects have demonstrated that by enhancing
oyster densities and oyster reef habitats, ecosystem services will respond accordingly.
The nine studies in NOAA’s Oyster Reef Ecosystem Services project used both empirical and modelling
techniques to assess the ecosystem services provided by large-scale oyster restoration. Some studies
demonstrated significant restoration benefits, but for others, the benefits were less evident. For empiricalstudies (those that require biological sampling), quantifying linkages between ecosystem services andrestoration is more challenging at upper trophic levels. For example, microbially mediated nutrient
cycling rates and macrofaunal abundance responded to restored oyster density, but abundance and dietof transient finfish were at best loosely linked to oyster restoration activity overall.
Experimentally derived nutrient cycling rates increased in response to enhanced oyster densities on
restoration sites. Field observations, modelling simulations, and extrapolations also demonstrated
elevated particle processing and nutrient cycling relative to oyster density and areal extent of restoration.
From a management perspective, this work suggests that if restoration successfully increases oyster
densities, then phytoplankton uptake and nutrient processing from biologically available to unavailable
forms will also increase. In turn, this provides benefits to water quality, and the expected result isincreased localized water clarity on scales proportional to the extent of restoration. A tangible potential
outcome of this work is inclusion of activities that enhance oyster abundance as Chesapeake Bay
nutrient reduction best management practices.
In general, abundance of both invertebrate macrofauna and small reef-resident fishes was found toincrease with oyster density. However, for larger transient species—even those generally associated withbottom habitats—strong linkages between abundance and oyster restoration activity were not observed.
Quantifying the significance of oyster restoration sites for larger transient fishes has consistently been
problematic (Harding and Mann 2001, Gregalis et al. 2008, Geraldi et al. 2009, Pierson and Eggleston2014), and is likely due to sampling gear inefficiency coupled with the mobile nature of these fishes.
These studies were successful at documenting species present on reefs throughout the Chesapeake Bay(see Appendix), but were less successful at identifying consistent utilization patterns of restored sites
relative to unrestored sites. For fish species such as black seabass, bluefish, cobia, silver perch,
spadefish, striped bass, and white perch, diets or consumption rates were linked to oyster reef prey. Dietsof Atlantic croaker were linked to reef prey in one study but not in another. For other species, diets were
either linked to other habitat types or habitat linkages could not be quantified. Benthic infauna, such asclams, may respond negatively to restoration, persisting at higher abundances in softer sediments, and,42

as a result, predators that rely on infaunal prey (e.g. spot, Atlantic croaker) may also exhibit a negative
response to restoration. It is clear that if oyster restoration successfully increases oyster density and theamount of structured habitat, then the abundance and diversity of macrofaunal prey will increase. This
provides enhanced foraging opportunities and potential growth and production of some commercially
important predator species such as American eel, black seabass, spotted seatrout, striped bass, summer
flounder, and weakfish. Although estuary-specific temperature and salinity may dictate exactly which
species use oyster reef habitat, these community-level responses would be expected at restoration sites
outside of the Chesapeake Bay.
Coupled food web and economic models provided estimates of the regional aggregated economic impactof three oyster restoration projects in the vicinity of the Choptank River, Maryland. Economic output
was compared among simulated management and ecosystem scenarios that varied reef age, filter feeder
biomass, and oyster sanctuary status. These simulations are significant, as they place estimated dollar
values relative to restoration and management options. Simulations suggested that relative tocommercially exploited oyster reef ecosystems, total regional output of fishery production by matureand fully functional reef ecosystems in these three oyster sanctuaries would increase by an estimated$22.8 million. Estimated increases in blue crab harvest were the main driver of enhanced aggregate
economic measures such as dockside landings, labor income, value-added, and employment.

Information Gaps
Notwithstanding the volume of work summarized here, several information gaps remain that are relevant
to fully understanding the ecosystem services provided by oyster restoration. These gaps identify thelimitations of the current body of knowledge and may suggest areas for future research. Among thesegaps are how services provided by restoration may vary relative to reef age, aquaculture, andcommercial harvest activities; and the spatial applicability of research findings, variability attributable todifferent restoration practices, and significance of restoration for production of juvenile fishes.
Ecosystem services benefits may vary relative to reef maturity. Oyster reef communities, frommicroorganisms to fish, would be expected to become established in about five years; however, it would
be important to know at what reef age ecosystem services are maximized, especially for benefits such as
nutrient cycling and suspended particle processing. Restoration sites studied in Maryland were up to six
years old and Virginia study sites were up to ten years old; none of the studies presented here consideredreef age as an explanatory variable for ecosystem services.
Relative to spatial coverage, oyster reef macrofauna and fish communities are adequately documented
on restoration sites throughout the Bay. However, due to temperature and salinity differences, estimatednutrient cycling rates derived from Harris Creek restoration sites alone may not necessarily be applicable
to reefs in the lower Bay or elsewhere within the range of the oyster.
Sonar and video monitoring (Figs. 11 and 17) demonstrates that from a structural perspective, not alloyster habitats are equivalent. Subtidal restoration reefs vary in height, construction material
composition and particle size, and whether they are planted with hatchery oysters or colonized by wild
oysters. Variability in these factors can alter currents and food delivery for filter feeders (Lenihan 1999);
determine the amount and size of interstitial spaces that may serve as refuge, foraging, or reproductive

43

habitats for mobile organisms (Humphries et al. 2011, Brown et al. 2014); and influence the amount of
surface area potentially available for photosynthetic and microbial activity and for higher sessileorganisms. It is likely that these factors also regulate ecosystem services, though the benefits provided
by different restoration methodologies have not been adequately examined. We know how nutrient
cycling, macrofauna, and reef-resident fish communities respond to increased oyster abundance, but we
do not know the effects of factors such as reef height, material, and surface area. Further exploration of
the linkages between biological processes and structural metrics may support the application of remotesensing to provide rapid assessment of the relative value of benthic habitats or restoration sites.
Estuaries provide significant nursery habitats for numerous fish species (Wingate & Secor 2008), manywith commercial value. Largely dependent on sampling gear used, the studies summarized here did notcollect many juvenile fishes or directly address the use of restored reefs by younger life stages.
Enhanced abundance of macrofauna and small reef-resident fishes on restored oyster reefs presumably
could serve as a superior foraging resource that could increase production of juvenile fishes. Structurally
complex reefs could also provide predation refuge for juvenile fishes, further improving recruitment
success and production. Quantifying positive relationships between oyster reefs and vital rates ofjuvenile stages of commercially significant fish species would increase the ecosystem services value ofoyster restoration.

44

Journal Publications
Jackson. M., M. S. Owens, J. C. Cornwell, and M. L. Kellogg. 2018. Comparison of methods fordetermining biogeochemical fluxes from a restored oyster reef. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0209799.
Karp, M. A., R. D. Seitz, and M.C. Fabrizio. 2018. Faunal communities on restored oyster reefs: effectsof habitat complexity and environmental conditions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 590: 35-51.
Kellogg, M. L., J. C. Cornwell, and M. S. Owens. Measurement of biogeochemical fluxes in oyster reef
environments. Submitted to Marine Ecology Progress Series. Currently in revision.
Knoche, S., T. F. Ihde, G. Samonte, H. M. Townsend, D. Lipton, K. A. Lewis, and S. Steinback. 2020.
Estimating Ecological Benefits and Socio-Economic Impacts from Oyster Reef Restoration in the
Choptank River Complex, Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OHC-6, 68 p.
Longmire, K. A., R. D. Seitz, A. Smith, and R. N. Lipcius. Saved by the shell: oyster reefs shieldjuvenile blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Submitted to Marine Ecology Progress Series.
Owens, M. S., and J. C. Cornwell. 2016. The benthic exchange of O2, N2 and dissolved nutrients using
small core incubations. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), (114): e54098.
Pfirrmann, B. W., and R. D. Seitz. 2019. Ecosystem services of restored oyster reefs in a Chesapeake
Bay tributary: abundance and foraging of estuarine fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 628: 155169.

45

Literature Cited
Biro, P. A. 2013. Are most samples of animals systematically biased? Consistent individual trait
differences bias samples despite random sampling. Oecologia, 171 (2): 339–345.
Brown, L. A., J. N. Furlong, K. M. Brown, and M. K. La Peyre. 2014. Oyster reef restoration in thenorthern Gulf of Mexico: effect of artificial substrate and age on nekton and benthic macroinvertebrate
assemblage use. Restoration ecology, 22 (2): 214–222.
Abeels, H. A., A. N. Loh, and A. K. Volety. 2012. Trophic transfer and habitat use of oyster Crassostrea
virginica reefs in southwest Florida, identified by stable isotope analysis. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 462: 125–142.
Chesapeake Bay Federal Leadership Committee. 2012. Executive Order 13508 Action Plan, Strategy forProtecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, March 30, 2012.
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/18027/(attachment_vii.b)_eo_13508_fy12_action_plan_2
012-03-05.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Oyster Restoration Outcome: Management Strategy 2015–2025 v. 2.
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/1b_oyster_managementstrategy_7-06-18.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Fish Habitat Outcome: Management Strategy 2015–2025 v. 2.
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/22036/20182019_fish_habitat_management_strategy_final_12.3.18.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2019. 2017 WIP, 2025 WIP and Water Quality Standards Attainment& Monitoring Outcomes Management Strategy 2015–2025 v. 2
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/22046/2018-2019__wq_final-ms_05-01-19_clean.pdf
Christensen, V., A. Beattie, C. Buchanan, H. Ma, S. J. D. Martel, R. J. Latour, D. Preikshot, M. B.
Sigrist, J. H. Uphoff, C. J. Walters, R. J. Wood, and H. Townsend. 2010. Fisheries ecosystem model of
the Chesapeake Bay methodology, parameterization, and model exploration. NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-106, 147 p.
Federal Leadership Committee Chesapeake Bay. 2010. Executive Order 13508: Strategy for Protecting
and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay, May 12, 2010.
https://federalleadership.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2010%2f5%2fChesapeake+EO+Strategy%20.
pdf
Fulford, R. S., D. K. Breitburg, R. I. Newell, W. M. Kemp, and M. Luckenbach. 2007. Effects of oyster
population restoration strategies on phytoplankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay: a flexible modelingapproach. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 336: 43–61.
Grabowski, J. H., A. R. Hughes, D. L. Kimbro, and M. A. Dolan. 2005. How habitat setting influences
restored oyster reef communities. Ecology, 86 (7): 1926–1935.

46

Gregalis, K. C., S. P. Powers, and K. L. Heck. 2008. Restoration of oyster reefs along a bio-physicalgradient in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Journal of Shellfish Research, 27 (5): 1163–1170.
Geraldi, N. R., S. P. Powers, K. L. Heck, and J. Cebrian. 2009. Can habitat restoration be redundant?
Response of mobile fishes and crustaceans to oyster reef restoration in marsh tidal creeks. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 389: 171–180.
Harding, J. M., and R. Mann. 2001. Oyster reefs as fish habitat: opportunistic use of restored
reefs by transient fishes. Journal Shellfish Research. 20 (3): 951–959.
Humphries, A. T., M. K. La Peyre, and G. A. Decossas. 2011. The effect of structural complexity, preydensity, and “predator-free space” on prey survivorship at created oyster reef mesocosms. PLoS One, 6(12): e28339.
Ihde, T. F., I. C. Kaplan, E. A. Fulton, I. A. Gray, M. Hasan, D. Bruce, W. Slacum, and H. Townsend.
2016. Design and Parameterization of the Chesapeake Bay Atlantis Model: A Spatially Explicit End-toEnd Ecosystem Model. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-166, 145 p.
Karp, M. A., R. D. Seitz, and M. C. Fabrizio. 2018. Faunal communities on restored oyster reefs: effectsof habitat complexity and environmental conditions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 590: 35–51.
Kellogg, M. L., J. C. Cornwell, M. S. Owens, and K. T. Paynter: 2013. Denitrification and nutrient
assimilation on a restored oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 480: 1-19.
Lenihan, H. S. 1999. Physical–biological coupling on oyster reefs: how habitat structure influencesindividual performance. Ecological Monographs, 69 (3): 251–275.
Luckenbach, M. W., R. Mann, and J. A. Wesson. 1999. Oyster reef habitat restoration: a synopsis andsynthesis of approaches. Proceedings from the symposium; Williamsburg, Virginia, April 1999.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Marine fisheries habitat assessment improvement
plan. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-108, 115 p.
Pfirrmann, B. W., and R. D. Seitz. 2019. Ecosystem services of restored oyster reefs in a Chesapeake
Bay tributary: abundance and foraging of estuarine fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 628: 155–
169.
Pierson, K. J., and D. B. Eggleston. 2014. Response of estuarine fish to large-scale oyster reef
restoration. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 143 (1): 273–288.
Powell, E. N., J. N. Kraeuter, and K. A. Ashton-Alcox, K. A. 2006. How long does oyster shell last on
an oyster reef? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 69 (3-4): 531–542.
Oyster Metrics Workgroup. 2011. Restoration Goals, Quantitative Metrics and Assessment Protocols for
Evaluating Success on Restored Oyster Reef Sanctuaries.

47https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/17932/oyster_restoration_success_metrics_final.pdf
Quan, W., A. T. Humphries, L. Shi, Y. Chen. 2012. Determination of trophic transfer at a createdintertidal oyster (Crassostrea ariakensis) reef in the Yangtze River estuary using stable isotope analyses.
Estuaries and Coasts 39: 109–120.
Rothschild, B. J., J. S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster
population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine ecology progress series. Oldendorf,
111 (1): 29–39.
Seitz, R. D., S. Aguilera, M. A. Wood, and R. N. Lipcius. 2019. Production and vertical distribution of
invertebrates on riprap shorelines in Chesapeake Bay: A novel rocky intertidal habitat. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 228: 106357.
The Nature Conservancy. 2019. Bringing Back an Icon—Oyster Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay.
https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/maryland-dc/stories-in-marylanddc/oyster-restoration-in-maryland/
Wilberg, M. J., M. E. Livings, J. S. Barkman, B. T. Morris, and J. M. Robinson. 2011. Overfishing,disease, habitat loss, and potential extirpation of oysters in upper Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 436: 131–144.
Wingate, R. L., and D. H. Secor. 2008. Effects of winter temperature and flow on a summer-fall nurseryfish assemblage in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 137(4): 1147–1156.

48

Appendix: Organisms Collected at Chesapeake Bay Oyster
Restoration Sites during Ecosystem Services SamplingGroup
AnemoneTunicate
Worm

Mollusk

Name
AnemoneOrange Striped Anemone
White Anemone
Sea Squirt
Sea Grape
Flatworm
worm
Other Worm
worm
Polychaete
Clam Worm
Ice Cream Cone WormRock Worm
worm
worm
worm
worm
Clam
Baltic Macoma
Dwarf Surf Clam
False Angelwing
Gem ClamHard Clam
Mitchell Macoma
Soft-shell Clam
MusselDark False Mussel
Hooked Mussel
Ribbed Mussel
Snail
Brown-band Wentletrap
Convex Slippershell
Eastern White Slippershell
Impressed Odostome
Lunar Dove
Rams Horn

Species

Location

Diadumene lineata
Diadumene leucolena

1
1

Molgula manhattenensis

1,4,5,6,7

Stylochus ellipticus

1

Mediomastus sp.

1

Alitta succinea
Pectinaria gouldii
Marphysa sanguinea
Hydroides dianthus
Terebellidae spp.
Phyllodocidae spp.
Spionidae spp.

1
1
4,5,6,7
5,6,7
6,7
1
1

Macoma balthica
Mulinia lateralis
Petricolaria pholadiformis
Gemma gemma
Mercenaria mercenaria
Macoma mitchelli
Mya arenaria

1
1
1
1
6,7
1
1

Mytilopsis leucophaeata
Ischadium recurvum
Guekensia demissa

1
1,4,5,6,7
6,7

Gyroscala rupicola
Crepidula convexa
Crepidula plana
Boonea impressa
Astyris lunata
Planorbidae spp.

1
5,6,7
5,6,7
1
6,7
1

49

Sea Slug
Solitary Glass Bubble
Truncated Marsh Hydrobia
snail
snail
Crustacean Amphipod
Scud
Scud
Skeleton Shrimp
amphipod
amphipod
amphipod
amphipod
amphipod
amphipod
Barnacles
barnacles
barnacles
CrabBlackfingered Mud CrabBlue Crab
Oyster Crabmud crab
mud crab
mud crab
IsopodisopodisopodisopodisopodisopodisopodShrimpBigclaw Snapping Shrimp
Brackish Grass Shrimp
Daggerblade Grass Shrimp
Marsh Grass Shrimp
shrimpTanaidacean

Corambe obscura
Haminoea solitaria
Ecrobia truncata
Anachis spp.
Odostomia sp.

1
1
1
4,5,6
4,6,7

Apocorophium lacustre
Gammarus mucronatus
Caprellidae spp.
Corophium sp.
Cymadusa compta
Dulichiella appendiculata
Melita nitida
Microdeutopsus gryllotalpa
Monoculodes edwardsi

1
1
1,6
6,7
1,4,5,6,7
5,6,7
1,4,5,6,7
6,7
1

Amphibalanus spp.
Barnacles

1
4,5,6,7Panopeus herbstii
Callinectes sapidus
Zaops ostreus
Dyspanopeus sayi
Eurypanopeus depressus
Xanthidae spp.

4,5,6,7
1,2,3,4,5,7
6,7
6,7
4,5,6,7
4,5,6,7Cassidinidea lunifrons
Chiridotea almyra
Cyathura polita
Erichsonella attenuata
Probopyrus pandicola
Synidotea laevidorsalis

1
1
1
1
11
1

Alpheus heterochaelis
Palaemonetes intermedius
Palaemonetes pugio
Palaemonetes vulgaris
Lubinia dubia
Hargeria rapax

4,6,7
1
1
1,4,5,6,7
6
1

50

Insect
Fish

Fly
midge
Fish
American Eel
American Harvestfish
Atlantic Croaker
Atlantic Menhaden
Atlantic Thread Herring
Bay Anchovy
Black Sea Bass
Bluefish
Cobia
Cownose Ray
Feather Blenny
Gizzard ShadGray Snapper
Hogchoker
Houndfish
Inland Silversides
Lined Seahorse
MulletNaked Goby
Northern Kingfish
Northern Pipefish
Northern Puffer
Northern Searobin
Oyster Toadfish
PigfishPinfishRed Drum
Sheepshead
Silver Perch
Skilletfish
Southern Kingfish
Spadefish
Spot
Spotted Seatrout
Striped Bass
Striped Blenny
Summer FlounderThree-spined Stickleback

Chironomidae spp.

1

Anguilla rostrata
Peprilus paru
Micropogonias undulates
Brevoortia tyrannus
Opisthonema oglinum
Anchoa mitchilli
Centropristis striata
Pomatomus saltatrix
Rachycentron canadum
Rhinoptera bonasus
Hypsoblennius hentz
Dorosoma cepedianum
Lutjanus griseus
Trinectes maculatus
Tylosurus crocodilus
Menidia beryllina
Hyppocoampus erectus
Mugil sp.
Gobiosoma bosc
Menticirrhus saxatilis
Syngnathus fuscus
Sphoeroides maculatus
Prionotus carolinus
Opsanus Tau
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Lagodon rhomboides
Sciaenops ocellatus
Archosargus probatocephalus
Bairdiella chrysoura
Gobiesox strumosus
Menticirrhus americanus
Chaetodipterus faber
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cynosion nebulosus
Morone saxatillis
Chasmodes bosquianus
Paralichthys dentatus
Gasterosteus aculeatus

1,2,3,4,5
5
5,7
1,5,7
5,7
1
5
5,7
5
5
5
5,7
5
5
5
1,5
5
7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
5,7
5
3,5
7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
5
5,7
5
5
1,3,5,7
1,5
5
5
1,2,3,5,7
3,5,7
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5,7
5
151

Weakfish
White Perch
Whitefin Sharksucker

Cynosion regalis
Morone americana
Echeneis neucratoides

1-Harris Creek, MD
2-Tred Avon River, MD
3-Little Choptank River, MD
4-Great Wicomico River, VA
5-Piankatank River, VA
6-Lafayette River, VA
7-Lynnhaven River, VA

52

1,5,7
1,2,
5