# Ecological Functions of

Nearshore Hardbottom Habitats in East Florida: A Literature Synthesis

June 2009

Prepared for:

Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 300
Tallahassee, Florida 32399



# Prepared by:

CSA International, Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997

# Ecological Functions of

Nearshore Hardbottom Habitats in East Florida: A Literature Synthesis

June 2009

Prepared for:

Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Prepared by:

CSA International, Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue
Stuart, Florida 34997 Authors:

Kenyon C. Lindeman Department of Marine and Environmental Systems Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida

Daniel A. McCarthy Department of Biology and Marine Science Jacksonville University Jacksonville, Florida

Karen G. Holloway-Adkins East Coast Biologists, Inc.
Indialantic, Florida

David B. Snyder CSA International, Inc.
Stuart, FloridaAcknowledgments 

# A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s

The genesis, funding, and review of this project we re made possible by the Florida Legislature through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Beach Management Funding Assistance Program. The report was prepared under contract to PSBJ. We thank the project’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for their assistance and editorial comments throughout the project. TAC members included Martin Seeli ng, Roxane Dow, and Vladimir Kosmynin (Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems), Cheryl Miller (Coastal Eco-Group Inc.), Don De is (PBSJ), Jeff Beal and Dr. Robin Trindell (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conser vation Commission), Terri Jordan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and Jocelyn Karazsia (National Marine Fish eries Service). At CSA International, Inc. (CSA), we thank Melody Powell for proofreading and editi ng the entire document and Karen Stokesbury for coordinating document production. Keith VanGraafeiland and Chris Dean at CSA also assisted with aerial imagery and nearshore hardbottom acreage es timates. Staff from agencies and consulting companies, including Ken Banks (Broward County Depar tment of Environmental Protection), Brian Flynn (Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management), Brian Walker (National Coral Reef Institute, Nova Southeastern Univ ersity Oceanographic Center), Janet Phipps and Carmen Vare (Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resour ces Management), and Quin Robertson (Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc.), also provided esti mates of hardbottom acreage. We gratefully acknowledge Julia Goodman (Jacksonville Universi ty) for the hours she spent compiling lists of

invertebrates encountered in the various studies we reviewed. We thank Gerry Pinto (Jacksonville University) for developing the draft of the arthropod section within the invertebrate chapter. Jon Norenburg and Mary Rice of the Smithsonian Institute provided si gnificant input on nemertines and sipunculans, respectively. We thank Bailey Estrada (East Coast Biologists, Inc.) for many hours helping develop the figures and tables in the algae and marine turtle chapters, Larry Wood (Palm Beach Zoo) for sharing his hawksbill turtle research findings, and Mark and Diane Littler (Smithsonian Institute) for permission to reference their functional form tables and concepts. We thank Scott Hurley (Harbor Branch Foundation) and Kirsten Jones (Gumbo Limbo Nature Center) for allowing use of their photographs to better illustrate some nearshore hardbottom habitats. We also thank Stacy Prekel and Jessica Craft of Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. for graciously provided data from their monitoring projects. Finally, we thank Lance Jordan (Nova Southeastern University Oceanogra phic Center) and Grant Gilmore (Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Science, In c.) for reviews and comments on several chapters.

Suggested Citation:

CSA International, Inc. 2009. Ecological function s of nearshore hardbottom habitat in east Florida: A literature synthesis. Prepared for the Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Tallahassee, FL. 186 pp + apps.Executive Summary ES-1 

# E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Given the complex policy questions involving hardbo ttom burial and mitigation, the consensus need for ecosystem-based management, and the large but unsynthesized literature base, this study responds to four issues: 1) What are specific ecological functi ons of nearshore hardbottom (NHB) (0 to 4 m depth)?, 2) What is happening to the coastal ecosystem (broader than NHB) when NHB is lost due to nourishment?, 3) Is offshore hardbottom (OHB) (>6 m depth) able to compensate for the loss of NHB?, and 4) If the NHB habitat has specific properties and functions that cannot be compensated for by existing OHB habitat, what are the best mitigation alternatives for the loss of natural NHB?

Very little depth-specific data exist for a majority of taxa throughout the region, which currently limits some of our ability to summarize core functional differences between NHB and OHB. However, a good deal of

new information has been assembled and examined on shallow hardbottom structure and distributions ( Section 1 ); the algal, invertebrate, fish, and turtle as semblages associated with shallow hardbottom ( Section 2 ); and primary ecological functions of shallo w hardbottom with a focus on latitudinal and depth variations, and implications for improv ed mitigation planning and implementation ( Section 3 ).

ALGAE, INVERTEBRATE, FISH, AND TURTLE ASSEMBLAGES

Shallow hardbottom of southeast and east central Fl orida supports a sometimes diverse reef assemblage consisting of algae, invertebrates, fishes, and sea tu rtles. The fish and sea turtle components of the assemblage tend to be dominated by juvenile life stages . Patches of NHB exist in portions of Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Br evard Counties. Although these areas typically are separated by kilometers of sand, there are some areas where there is a semi-continuous hardbottom gradient from the beach into depths exceeding 6 m. Offshore, many mid-shelf areas are also dominated by expanses of sand, despite the va riable occurrence of several mid-s helf reefs. Therefore, in many shallow areas, there are no natural habitats in t he same or adjacent nearshore areas that can support equivalent abundances of early life stages of fishes and the invertebrates on which they largely feed. Absences of nursery structure can result in increa sed predation and lowered growth. In newly settled and juvenile stages, such conditions could foster demograph ic bottlenecks that ultimately result in lowered local population sizes (Jones, 1991).

Algae

The total number of recorded algal taxa, both ident ified and unidentified, is approximately 340, including 277 known species. Potentially dominant genera are Ceramium, Dictyota, Hypnea, Laurencia, Gelidium, Caulerpa

, Jania , and Ulva , depending on subregions and other factors. Sunlight converted into macroalgal tissue is directly eaten by as many as 20 genera of invertebrates, at least 14 genera of fishes, and the juvenile stage of the endangered green turtle, Chelonia mydas

.

Algae are a dominant driver of the food web and also contribute to shelter used by hundreds of species of invertebrates and fishes. All algal species contribut e to oxygen and nutrient production. In terms of functional form groups, jointed-calcareous algae are most responsible for sediment enrichment and sand building. The abundance and diversity of macroalgae on NHB vary substantially with changes in latitude from Cape Canaveral to Miami Beach.

Invertebrates

Over 533 species of invertebrates have been identified along the east Florida coast, and there are likely to be more. The diversity of sessile species is greatest for cnidarians (~21%), bryozoans (~29%), and sponges (~19%). Some sessile groups may not be represented with such high diversity but can occur in very high biomass. A primary example is the sabellariid polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa , which can

### be very abundant along the mid- to north sections of the project area and is a habitat engineer that creates structure supporting high divers ities of many other invertebrates.

The most diverse and generally abundant motile in vertebrates are arthropods and polychaetes, which represent 47% and 28%, respectively, of the total number of motile invertebrate species. Over 100 species of crustaceans are extremely abundant, especially on worm reef-dominated hardbottoms. These include crabs, stomatopods, shrimp, isopo ds, and amphipods. There are over 87 reported polychaete species that are likely to be very abundant, although more research is needed to confirm this. There are also fairly high numbers of gastropods, fl at worms, ribbon worms, and echinoderms on these

habitats.

Primary ecological functional roles of invertebrates along the east Florida coast include 1) shelter-enhancing organisms that increase local di versity of fishes and invertebrates, and 2) predators or prey in local food webs. Generally, the highest community biomasses along the mainland east Florida coast occur in hardbottom areas with higher abundances of sessile invertebrate species (some may be considered foundational or keystone contributors to t he community) that enhance local shelter. Along the Florida coast, important shelter-enhancing taxonomic groups are hard and soft corals, sponges, tunicates, molluscs, barnacles, and polychaetes (i.e., P. lapidosa ). However, their importance in this function may vary dramatically with depth and latitude . In terms of contribution to local food webs, important taxonomic groups are sponges, pol ychaetes, echinoderms, crabs, and shrimp.

The loss of NHB would result in a significant re duction of a high biomass of invertebrates (sponges, corals, crabs, shrimp, worms, gastropods, bivalves) that could significantly change the nearshore food web. Before a dredging event, the nearshore communit y can be fairly diverse, consisting of a number of opportunistic (common) and longer-lived (often uncomm on) species. The diversity contributes to a

nearshore food web that consists of suspension feeders, herbivores, omnivores, and various levels of carnivores. However, after a dredging event occurs that results in high mortality and habitat elimination, there is likely to be a less diverse community cons isting of more opportunistic species and fewer rare species such as corals. Further, conditions where ther e are significant reductions in shelter enhancement in these areas (via fewer sessile species) could re duce the number of small carnivore trophic levels and have possible adverse effects on the higher trophic levels within the assemblage.

Natural recovery of hardbottom habitats depends on both re-exposure of substrate as well as the recruitment capability of sessile shelter-enhancing inve rtebrates which in turn likely affect associated motile invertebrate species. Although it requires furt her investigation, it appears that very few older adult motile invertebrates would migrate into the area of impact. Consequently, habitat recovery requires ample larval supply and recruitment of the shelter-en hancing species to facilitate what could be a slow recovery of many associated motile invertebrates . The slow recovery of crevice-dwe lling species (e.g., small crabs, shrimp, worms) ma y in turn affect prey availability for many motile invertebrate predators and some fishes. Further, degradation in water quality (most likely via fine resuspension and chronic turbidity) may affect fitness and/ or survival of suspension feeders.

It is unlikely that OHB is able to compensate for the loss of NHB, particularly in the northern areas of the east Florida coast. Mitigation efforts to restor e hardbottom habitats in some areas likely depend on recruitment capability of shelter-enhancing species such as P. lapidosa . Local hydrodynamics and the type, rugosity, and relief of construction materials mu st be considered for artificial reefs to maximize recruitment and subsequent recovery of the habitat. For instance, in the case of P. lapidosa , abundance decreases significantly in water deeper than 4 m. Even within the 0 to 4 m depth range, the highest

abundances occur more towards the intertidal zone. This may be related to better feeding and reproductive opportunities and greater availability of suspended sand particles for tube-building in these more turbulent shallow waters. However, the me chanism by which worms settle and survive in these habitats is via large-scale hydrodynamics that affect larval supply and various biot ic/abiotic factors that affect juvenile mortality. It is likely (thoug h it requires further investigation) that settling P. lapidosa larvae may touch bottom in deeper waters, but actively postp one metamorphosis and choose to settle when they encounter shallower waters (McCarthy, 2001).

Executive Summary ES-2

### Consequently, if the goal is to mitigate for loss of worm reefs (and associated or ganisms), then structures deployed in the OHB would not be successful unless chemical cues, hydrodynamics, or other

environmental factors coul d be created that accurately mimic the s hallower waters and induce larvae to settle. Further, if settlement does occur at these de pths, growing juveniles must survive, and recruitment of associated species must occur to properly mitigate for lost habitat.

Fishes

Currently, 257 species of fishes are recorded from NHB habitats. Species composition for the NHB ichthyofaunal assemblage is similar to that from s hallow coral reef faunas from the region. Empirical information is highly limited on the amount of c onnectivity between shallow patches of hardbottom and deeper reefs for fishes and invertebrates of east Florid a. The available information suggests that diverse fish species that ontogenetically migrate into deeper water can use NHB during early life stages. The physical environment is subject to wind and wave dist urbance of sometimes high levels at intermediate temporal and spatial scales, and NHB assemblages are disturbance-mediated. If the NHB in use is close enough to intermediate hardbottom (IHB) or OHB, some of these species, depending on many changing ecological drivers (predation, growth, larval recrui tment), could ontogenetically migrate into deeper habitats. Answers to the question “How close is cl ose enough?” will vary by species, site, and time. Tagging studies using either conventional or acoust ic methods that compare cross-shelf movements of

fishes associated with isolated bands of NHB with movements of fishes associated with hardbottom extending continuously across the depth gradient fr om NHB to OHB would provide valuable insights.

Some differences among ichthyofaunal assemblage s are present between the southern and northern

areas of mainland southeast and east central Florida in terms of the most abundant species. This information suggests there is a southern NHB icht hyofauna and a less diverse northern fauna, particularly

north of the deflection of the Gulf Stream offshore. Potential explanations for such difference in dominant species within 100 to 200 km north-south distances may include temporal recruitment variations, NHB structural differences between the two areas, specie s reaching their biogeographic distributional limits

between the northern and southern areas, and other factors.

NHB structural differences probably exist between thes e areas as described above, but many of the more prominent species appear to be relatively opportunistic in their use of differing NHB and IHB microhabitat

structure. At least three of the prominent species (black margate, sailors choice, and hairy blenny) are listed by Gilmore and Hastings (1983) as species whose Florida distributions are restricted to east Florida, not occurring in the Gulf of Mexico as co ngeners do. More research is required to parse the multiple factors and examine the above alternatives to better understand these and other north-to-south differences in fish assemblage pattern.

Turtles

Juvenile sea turtles of three species commonly associate with shallow hardbottom of mainland east Florida. Juvenile stages of the endangered green turtle, Chelonia mydas , can associate with shallow hardbottom for years, feeding on macroalgae and using structure for shelter. NHB certainly represents facultative habitat for juvenile green turtles that may utilize estuarine ar eas, as well. However, juvenile green turtle populations residing in bays and lagoon s have shown high occurrences of disease and injury. As human populations and construction increase in Florida, nearshore reef habitat may play a comparatively more significant role in the recovery of these endangered species. There also are many interactions between turtles and an array of organism s that utilize shallow hardb ottom. For example,

hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata fragment sponges when foraging, creating space and habitat for other organisms, as well as increasing sponge grow th through fragmentation. Globally, DNA evidence indicates juvenile marine turtles on NHB represent a mixed stock of progeny from the Caribbean, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Mediterranean nesting grounds.

Executive Summary ES-3Executive Summary ES-4 

### ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND MESOSCALE CONNECTIVITY

Many species use NHB, IHB, and OHB as settlement and juvenile grow-out areas. The majority of the fish species are abundantly recorded from coral reefs, as are many other resident and transient organisms. For fishes, NHB assemblages are not only juvenile dominated, they are reef-species dominated. As the only natural habitat structure within a radius of 0.5 to 5 km of sand in any direction, NHB structural features potentia lly serve a variety of ecosystem functions, including settlement and nursery areas, spawning sites (for over 100 species of invertebrates and fishes), economic drivers, and recreational service providers.

For sessile invertebrates, there appears to be a trend towards limited dispersal of larvae or juveniles along the east Florida coast. Of those species that reproduce sexually and asexually, many seem to propagate more via asexual reproduction. Recent molecular research supports this idea, as there appears to be restricted gene flow among Caribbean populations. Considerable information has been amassed regarding a variety of biotic and abiotic factors that contribute to retention in larvae.

Developing better information on population connect ivity can allow greater understanding of impact cascades at more refined spatial, temporal, and population scales. Efforts are underway to assign select species or families of primary groups to appropriate connectivity categories. S pecies with short larval periods show attributes of populations that could be categorized in patterns reflecting either 1) mesoscale dispersal structured by physics, resulting in several me tapopulation substructures, or 2) diffusive dispersal with stepping-stone metapopulations. These connectivity patterns may change markedly above and

below the St. Lucie deflection of the Florida Current.

MITIGATION AND RESEARCH NEEDS

Increasingly important and expensive questions involve the use of mitigation projects to offset impacts from large dredge and fill projects. Typically, these q uestions represent key steps in the finalization of permitting processes. Preliminary conclusions regarding the functional attributes of NHB and the application of that information to the evaluation of mitigation alternatives include the following:

• Mitigation of NHB impacts by utilizing artificial reefs can often provide adequate replacement of lost

structural habitat and therefore some structure- and trophic-associated ecological functions.

• Not all mitigation reef designs and deployments will be successful in all situations, and site-specific factors must be considered. Different approaches and designs will be required for different locations

in southeast and east central Florida.

• For worm reef areas, ensuring successful local larv al recruitment events is essential. To this end, project designs need to ensure that sediment size range is suitable to incoming recruits.

• In terms of Issue 4, NHB functi ons from Brevard to mid-Palm Beac h County will not be fully replaced with artificial reefs in deeper NHB, IHB, or OHB water depths because of the depth limits of the habitat engineering worm species P. lapidosa and the high numbers of associated species that depend on P. lapidosa structure for shelter.

• A full conceptual ecological model (CEM) needs to be developed; this will be more efficient if a thorough food web draft is available. Much of the information to build a larger CEM is now available.

• Artificial reef mitigation does not appear to remove or provide compensatory mitigation for the direct and indirect physiological and potential populat ion scale impacts of turbidity and sediment resuspension.

• The intermediate or long term water quality effects on shallow hardbottom from turbidity and sedimentation events, long -shore and cross-shelf, that result from dredge and fill projects (and relationships to natural turbidity levels) require examination. Without this type of information, responses to Issue 2 regarding whole ecosystem e ffects when NHB is buried or to Issue 3 regarding OHB compensation roles will be not be fully resolvable.

• Approximately 340 algal taxa can associate with NHB, and most are subject to high mortality on a site that is filled. Mitigation reefs can provide new a ttachment sites for algae. Algal growth on mitigation reefs should correlate in part with water clarity.Table of Contents i 

# T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. .......... ES-1

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. ........................ v

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ ..................... vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... .................. xi



## Section 1 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape

CHAPTER 1 IN TRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... .........1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................1-1

1.2 ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND TERM S ...................................................................................1-6

1.3 NEARSHORE, INTERMEDIATE, A ND OFFSHORE HA RDBOTTOM.........................................1-7

1.4 SPECIES: WINDOWS IN TO ASSEMBLAGES? ..........................................................................1-8

1.5 EQUILIBRIUM A ND SCALE .........................................................................................................1 -9

1.6 ECOLOGICAL FU NCTIONS.........................................................................................................1- 9

CHAPTER 2 SHALLOW HARDBOTTOM OF EAST FLORIDA AND THE REGIONAL SHELF

SETTING........................................................................................................................ .......................2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........2-1

2.2 GEOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUT ES OF NEARSHORE HARDBOTTOM...............2-2

2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF SHALLOW HARDBOTTO M IN EAST FLORIDA, MIAMI TO

CANAVERAL ...................................................................................................................... ..........2-5

2.4 OFFSHORE HARDBO TTOM AREAS ..........................................................................................2-6

2.5 REGIONAL SETTING: THE FL ORIDA CURRENT AND THE CO NTINENTAL SHELF ............2-10

2.5.1 Currents and Upwe lling Event s......................................................................................2-10

2.5.2 Tides, Wind Events, Wave Acti vity, and Hurr icanes......................................................2-11



## Section 2 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom

CHAPTER 3 MACROALGAE A ND CYANOBACTE RIA..........................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........3-1

3.1.1 Functional Form Groups ..................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Latitudinal Gr adients ........................................................................................................3- 3

3.1.3 Depth Gradi ents...............................................................................................................3 -4

3.1.4 Algal Reprod uction ...........................................................................................................3- 5

3.1.5 Functional Form Gr oup Descript ions ...............................................................................3-7

3.2 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ..........3-15

CHAPTER 4 IN VERTEBRATES ........................................................................................................ .......4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........4-1

4.2 SESSILE SPECIES................................................................................................................ .......4-1

4.2.1 Polychaetes.................................................................................................................... ..4-1

4.2.2 Anthozoans ..................................................................................................................... .4-6

4.2.3 Sponges ........................................................................................................................ .4-11

4.2.4 Hydrozoans....................................................................................................................4 -12

# T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Page

Table of Contents ii 

### 4.2.5 Tunicates and Br yozoans ..............................................................................................4-13

4.2.6 Molluscs (Sessile) ..........................................................................................................4-1 4

4.2.7 Barnacles ...................................................................................................................... .4-17

4.3 MOTILE SPECIES ................................................................................................................. .....4-18

4.3.1 Crustaceans...................................................................................................................4 -18

4.3.2 Gastropods and Ot her Mollus cs ....................................................................................4-30

4.3.3 Echinoderms ..................................................................................................................4- 33

4.4 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ..........4-35

4.4.1 Diversity ...................................................................................................................... ...4-35

4.4.2 Trophic Patterns and Fu nctional Gr oups .......................................................................4-35

4.4.3 Latitudinal and Cross-sh elf Distribu tion ......................................................................... 4-36

4.4.4 Reproduction and Life Histor y........................................................................................4-36

4.4.5 Dispersal and C onnectivity ............................................................................................4-37

4.4.6 Recruitment and Cross-sh elf Habitat Use .....................................................................4-37

4.4.7 Economic and Recreati onal Valu e.................................................................................4-38

4.4.8 The Importance of Hardbo ttom to Invert ebrates............................................................4-38

CHAPTER 5 FISH ASSEMBLAGES..................................................................................................... ....5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........5-1

5.2 DEMERSAL CARN IVORES .........................................................................................................5-3

5.2.1 Focal Families and Species .............................................................................................5-3

5.2.2 Shelter Use .................................................................................................................... ..5-4

5.2.3 Trophic Pa tterns............................................................................................................... 5-8

5.2.4 Developmental Patterns and Cr oss-shelf Habi tat Use ....................................................5-8

5.2.5 Latitudinal Dist ribution......................................................................................................5 -9

5.3 CRYPTIC HARDBOTTOM RESIDENT S......................................................................................5-9

5.3.1 Focal Families and Species .............................................................................................5-9

5.3.2 Shelter Use .................................................................................................................... ..5-9

5.3.3 Trophic Pa tterns.............................................................................................................5- 11

5.3.4 Latitudinal Dist ribution....................................................................................................5-1 1

5.4 COASTAL PE LAGICS ............................................................................................................... .5-11

5.4.1 Focal Families and Species ...........................................................................................5-11

5.4.2 Shelter Use .................................................................................................................... 5-12

5.4.3 Trophic Pa tterns.............................................................................................................5- 14

5.4.4 Latitudinal Dist ribution....................................................................................................5-1 4

5.5 HERBIVORES AND OM NIVORES .............................................................................................5-15

5.5.1 Focal Families and Species ...........................................................................................5-15

5.5.2 Shelter Use .................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.5.3 Trophic Pa tterns.............................................................................................................5- 16

5.5.4 Developmental Patterns and Cr oss-shelf Habi tat Use ..................................................5-17

5.5.5 Latitudinal Dist ribution....................................................................................................5-1 7

5.6 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ..........5-18

5.6.1 Species Rich ness........................................................................................................... 5-18

5.6.2 Spawning ....................................................................................................................... 5-18

5.6.3 Settlement and Early Associat ions with H abitat ............................................................5-18

5.6.4 Developmental Patterns and Cr oss-shelf Habi tat Use ..................................................5-19

5.6.5 Trophic Patterns and Fu nctional Gr oups .......................................................................5-20

5.6.6 Latitudinal Variations in Shallow Hardbottom Fish A ssemblages..................................5-21

# T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Page

Table of Contents iii 

### CHAPTER 6 MARI NE TURTLES....................................................................................................... .......6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........6-1

6.1.1 Adult Marine Turtles.........................................................................................................6- 1

6.1.2 Hatchling Marine Turtles ..................................................................................................6-2

6.1.3 Predators...................................................................................................................... ....6-3

6.1.4 Water D epth.................................................................................................................... .6-5

6.1.5 Seasonality.................................................................................................................... ...6-5

6.2 SPECIES OVER VIEWS.............................................................................................................. ..6-5

6.2.1 Green Tu rtles .................................................................................................................. .6-8

6.2.2 Loggerhead Turt les..........................................................................................................6-9

6.2.3 Hawksbill Tu rtles............................................................................................................6- 12

6.3 DISTURBANCE EVENTS AND TURTLE S.................................................................................6-13

6.3.1 Shoreline Project Disturbances......................................................................................6-13

6.3.2 Red Tide Dist urbances ..................................................................................................6-13

6.4 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ..........6-13



## Section 3 Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives

CHAPTER 7 FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF SHALLOW HARDBOTTOM.................7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........7-1

7.2 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AL GROUPI NG..................................................................................7-2

7.2.1 Structure-Shelter Associat ed Functional Gr oupings........................................................7-3

7.2.2 Trophic Functional Groupings..........................................................................................7-9

7.3 LATITUDINAL COMP ARISONS .................................................................................................7-13

7.4 DISTURBANCE EC OLOGY .......................................................................................................7-14

7.5 OBLIGATE AND FACULTAT IVE HABITAT USE .......................................................................7-15

7.6 POPULATION CONNECTIVITY AND MAINTE NANCE.............................................................7-17

CHAPTER 8 MITIGATING SHALLO W HARDBOTTOM IMPACTS.........................................................8-1

8.1 STRESSORS AND EFFECTS ......................................................................................................8-1

8.1.1 Ecological Assessment Frameworks ...............................................................................8-1

8.1.2 Stressors, Responses, and Effects..................................................................................8-1

8.2 MITIGATION OF NEARSHOR E HARDBOTTOM BURIAL ..........................................................8-9

8.2.1 Artificial Reefs ............................................................................................................... .8-10

8.2.2 Monito ring ..................................................................................................................... .8-15

8.3 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... ......8-17

8.3.1 Regional and Organism-s pecific Is sues.........................................................................8-17

8.3.2 Monitoring Is sues...........................................................................................................8-1 8

# T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Page

Table of Contents iv 

### CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. .............9-1

9.1 ALGAL, INVERTEBRATE, FISH, AND TURTLE ASSEM BLAGES..............................................9-1

9.1.1 Algae .......................................................................................................................... ......9-1

9.1.2 Invertebr ates .................................................................................................................. ..9-2

9.1.3 Fishes......................................................................................................................... ......9-3

9.1.4 Turtles ........................................................................................................................ ......9-4

9.2 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS A ND CONNECTI VITY ....................................................................9-5

9.3 MITIGATION ..................................................................................................................... ............9-6

9.4 RESEARCH NEEDS................................................................................................................. ....9-6

CHAPTER 10 LITE RATURE CITED .................................................................................................... ...10-1

APPENDICES Appendix A..................................................................................................................... ...............A-1 Appendix B..................................................................................................................... ...............B-1 Appendix C..................................................................................................................... .............. C-1 Appendix D..................................................................................................................... .............. D-1List of Tables v 

# L i s t o f T a b l e s

Table Page

1.1 Ecological terms used in the present study............................................................................1-7

2.1 Study counties from north to south with shallow hardbottom acreage by depth strata by year........................................................................................................................ ............2-1

2.2 Geological and biological comparisons between nearshore areas of the mainland east Florida coast and the northern margin of the Florida reef tract and the Florida Keys (Adapted from: Cooke, 1945; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Hoffme ister, 1974)................2-5

3.1 Macroalgal functional form group descriptions as propose d in Littler et al. ( 1983)................3-3

3.2 Effects of environmental conditions on the various algal functional form groups based

on Littler et al. (1983)....................................................................................................... .......3-3

4.1 Species recruitment into intertidal and subtidal habitats from June 1997 through January 2000 in Boynt on Beach, Fl orida ...............................................................................4-7

4.2 Abundance of associated macroinvertebrates collected from sabellariid worm reef (Stations 9 and 10 combined) at the St. Lucie Power Plant from April 1976 through April 1979 (From: Applied Biology, Inc ., 1979) .....................................................................4-15

4.3 Molluscs recorded during a survey of a newl y constructed artificial reef structure in the nearshore (~8 m depth) area off Boca Raton, Florida (Adapted from: Cummings, 1994).......................................................................................................................... ...........4-16

4.4 Data summary for molluscs collected from 41 colonies of the scleractinian coral

Oculina varicosa on four reefs off the east Florida coast (From: Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987).......................................................................................................................... ...........4-16

4.5 Comparison of worm reef arthropods found in the vicinity of Hutchinson Island, Florida with anthropod species found offshore in the same area (From: Camp et al., 1977).......................................................................................................................... ...........4-20

4.6 Abundance of associated decapods collect ed from sabellariid worm reef (Stations 9 and 10 combined) at the St. Lucie Power Pl ant from April 1976 through April 1979 (From: Applied Biol ogy, Inc., 1979) ...................................................................................... 4-21

4.7 Comparison of associated decapod and stomatopod crustaceans from studies at

Walton Rocks and the St. Lucie Power Plant (From: Appli ed Biology, Inc., 1979)..............4-21

4.8 The 51 most recurrent species of decapod and stomatopod crustaceans encountered from sabellariid worm reefs in the Indian River region of Florida, 1974 to 1975 (From:

Gore et al., 1978)............................................................................................................. .....4-22

4.9 Species richness of decapod and stomatopod crustaceans collected from sabellariid worm reefs in the Indian River region of Florida, 1974 to 1975 (From: Gore et al., 1978).......................................................................................................................... ...........4-23

4.10 Rank analysis of intertidal decapo ds from the east Florida coast (From: van Montfrans, 1981) ............................................................................................................... ...4-23

4.11 Rank analysis of the dominant subt idal decapods from the east Florida coast (From: van Montfr ans, 1981)................................................................................................4-24

4.12 Total number of the three most common subtidal decapod species at stations along the east Florida coast (Adapted from: van Montfr ans, 1981) ...............................................4-24

# L i s t o f T a b l e s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Table Page

List of Tables vi 

### 4.13 Numerical abundance of decapod species at Oculina varicosa coral reef stations at depths of 6, 27, 42, and 80 m (A dapted from: Reed et al., 1982) ........................................4-25

4.14 Percent occurrenc e of decapod species at Oculina varicosa coral reef stations at depths of 6, 27, 42, and 80 m (A dapted from: Reed et al., 1982) ........................................4-25

4.15 Physical parameters measured between 1976 and 1979 at Oculina varicosa coral reef stations at depths of 6, 27, 42, and 80 m ......................................................................4-26

4.16 Abundance of isopods and amphipods from sabellariid worm rock with percentage of contribution of species to total abundance of each order at Sebastian Inlet, Florida, April 1984-March 1985 (From: Nels on and Demetriade s, 1992) .........................................4-27

4.17 Summary of the life history characterist ics of the ontogenetic stages of spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ) (Adapted from: http://bio.fsu.edu/~ herrnlab/Life_History_Table.pdf).......4-29

5.1 Focal groups of fishes based on trophic and habitat us e attributes.......................................5-2

6.1 Role (functions) of nearshore hardbottom (NHB) (and reference to offshore hardbottom [OHB]) in marine tu rtle life histor y stages ...........................................................6-4

6.2 Marine turtle mark and recapture population studies conducted over nearshore

hardbottom..................................................................................................................... .........6-7

6.3 Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for ma rine turtle population studies conducted with tangle net capture methods adjacent to nearshore hardbottom habitats on the east

coast of Florida ............................................................................................................... ........6-7

6.4 Macroalgal species present in foraging samples from various population studies

conducted on marine turtles on ne arshore hardbotto m habitat ............................................6-10

7.1 Total numbers of family, genera, and species of macroalgae associated with

nearshore hardbottom habitat from studies along the east Florida coast ..............................7-2

7.2 Macroalgal species found on Florida’s Atlantic nearshore hardbottom habitat with known secondary metabolites proposed to aid in defense against herbivores

.................... 7-16

8.1 Representative response categories in ear ly stages of marine invertebrates or fishes when challenged by stressors from habitat burial (Modified from: Eisler, 1974; Olla et
al., 1974)..................................................................................................................... ............8-2

8.2 Invertebrate predictors of responses to dr edge and fill burial: 1) organismal responses, and 2) assemb lage-scale resp onses...................................................................8-5

8.3 Predictors of organism-s cale responses to dredge and fill burial in fishes . ...........................8-7

8.4 Predictors of organism- and population-scale responses to dredge and fill burial in

macroal gae..................................................................................................................... ........8-8

8.5 Predictors of organism- and population-scale responses to dredge and fill burial for

marine tu rtles................................................................................................................. .........8-9

8.6 Summary of compensatory mitigation fo r completed projects in southeast Florida between 1985 and 2004 (Adapted from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se rvice, 2004)..................8-14List of Figures vii 

# L i s t o f F i g u r e s

Figure Page

1.1 Overview of the seve n-county proj ect area ............................................................................1-2

1.2 Nearshore hardbottom tide pools, Coral Cove County Park, south Jupiter Island,

northern Palm Beach Co unty, Flor ida ....................................................................................1-3

1.3 Broken pavement structure, nearshore hardbottom, central Brevard County, Florida...........1-4

1.4 Microhabitat complexity among divers e taxa under a nearshore hardbottom ledge, MacArthur Beach State Park, Palm Beach County, Florida ...................................................1-4

1.5 Juvenile stage of the green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) feeding on nearshore hardbottom algae, Boca Raton, Pa lm Beach County , Florida................................................1-5

1.6 Anglers fishing from nearshore hardbottom to capture pompano and other coastal pelagic species known to occur near sand- rock interfaces, central Brevard County,

Florida........................................................................................................................ ...........1-10

2.1 Aerial image of Bathtub Re ef, Martin County, Florid a............................................................2-3

2.2 Nearshore hardbottom algal and invertebrate colonization on ledge exposed at full moon low tide, Brevard County, Flor ida .................................................................................2-4

2.3 Aerial views of nearshore hardbottom st ructures and sediment change at northern Singer Island, Palm Beach Co unty, Florida, 2003-2007 ........................................................2-7

2.4 Broward and northern Dade County plots from a summary of nearshore and offshore hardbottom information from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) (Perkins et al., 1997) ........................................................2-8

2.5 Indian River County hardbottom from a summary of nearshore and offshore hardbottom (From: Perk ins et al ., 1997)................................................................................. 2-9

2.6 Florida Current (shown in orange) wi th offshore deflection near the southern boundary of Martin County, Florida (Image from: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)................................................................................................................ ......2-10

2.7 Southward view of Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin Count y, Florid a.........................................2-12

2.8 Paths of hurricanes and st orms impacting east Florida during A) 2 005 and B) 2004..........2-13

3.1 Path of the Florida Current (Gulf Stream) ..............................................................................3-4

3.2 Percent composition of macroalgae an d cyanobacteria divisions documented from

studies conducted on nearshore hard bottom.........................................................................3-5

3.3 Percent composition of macroalgae an d cyanobacteria functional form groups

documented from studies conducted on nearshore ha rdbottom ............................................3-6

3.4 Percent composition of macroalgal fu nctional form groups (by county) documented

from studies conducted on nearshore hard bottom.................................................................3-6

3.5 Representative species of the sheet functional form group growing on nearshore

hardbottom: Ulva lactuca and Dictyota sp..............................................................................3-8

3.6 Percentage of species in the shee t functional group documented in studies

conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Br oward, Florida..............3-9

# L i s t o f F i g u r e s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Figure Page

List of Figures viii 

### 3.7 Percentage of species in the filam entous functional form group documented in

studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Broward,

Florida........................................................................................................................ ...........3-10

3.8 Representative species in the coarsely-branched functional form group growing on

nearshore hardbottom: Laurencia sp. and Caulerpa sp.......................................................3-11

3.9 Percentage of species in the coarse ly-branched functional form group documented

in studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Broward,

Florida........................................................................................................................ ...........3-11

3.10 Several representative species of the thic k-leathery functional form group, including Agardhiella subulata and Gracilaria sp., growing on nearshore hardbo ttom .......................3-12

3.11 Percentage of species in the thick- leathery functional form group documented in

studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Broward,

Florida........................................................................................................................ ...........3-13

3.12 Percentage of species in the jointed-calcareous functional form group documented

in studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Broward,

Florida........................................................................................................................ ...........3-14

4.1 Intertidal worm reef at Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin County, Flor ida .....................................4-2

4.2 The trophic subweb postulated for the six most abundant species of decapod

crustaceans on central Florida sabellariid worm reefs ...........................................................4-2

4.3 Close up of the anterior end of the reef-building polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ) ..................................................................................................................4-3

4.4 Close up of the anterior tube of an individual Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ) ..............4-3

4.5 Honeycomb structure created by thousands of Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ) ...........4-3

4.6 Monthly mean percentage cover of liv e adults, juveniles, destroyed worms, and

vacant mounds for Phragmatopoma lapidosa on Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin County, Florida (M cCarthy, 2008) .......................................................................................... 4-4

4.7 Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ) recruits recovered after 5 weeks deployment in

intertidal hardbottom off Bo ynton Beach, Florida ...................................................................4-5

4.8 High worm reef cover and wave activity at groynes at Palm Beach, Flor ida .........................4-5

4.9 Seasonal reproductive and life history trends of Phragmatopoma lapidosa in the Boynton Beach area as illustrate d by McCarthy (2001).........................................................4-6

4.10 An intertidal colony of the scleractinian Siderastrea sp. in Palm Beac h, Florida ...................4-8

4.11 The zooanthid Zoanthus pulchellus and various other sessile invertebrates (and green algae) on intertidal hardbottom in Palm Beach, Florida...............................................4-8

4.12 An intertidal colony of the rock-boring sponge Pione ( Cliona ) lam pa in Stuart, Florida.......4-11

4.13 The demosponge Aplysina fistularia on hardbottom off Palm Beach, Fl orida .....................4-12

4.14 Colonial hydrozoans on a mitigation reef in Juno Beach, Flor ida ........................................4-12

4.15 Botryllus sp. overgrowing dead worm rock at Boynton Beach, Florida................................4-14

# L i s t o f F i g u r e s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Figure Page

List of Figures ix 

### 4.16 The volcano barnacle Tetraclita squamosa stalactifera and various other sessile

invertebrates on intertidal hardbotto m in Palm Beach, Florid a ............................................4-17

4.17 Tidal spray crab ( Plagiusa depressa ) in Palm Beach, Florid a .............................................4-18

4.18 Species composition at each of four Oculina stations (From: Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987)

.................................................................................................................. 4-31

4.19 The rock-boring urchin Echinometra lucunter on shallow hardbottom habitat in Vero Beach, Florida ................................................................................................................. .....4-34

4.20 The sea cucumber Holothuria grisea on shallow hardbottom habitat in Ambersands Beach, Florida ................................................................................................................. .....4-34

5.1 Multispecies school of juvenile fishes including four species and three families (grunts, wrasses, and damselfishes) in association with nearshore hardbottom

structure...................................................................................................................... ............5-1

5.2 Early juvenile lane snapper ( Lutjanus synagris ) associating with algal-rock-sand interface, 3 to 4 m, John U. Lloyd State Park, Broward Co unty, Florida................................5-3

5.3 Resting nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum , a generalized feeder on bottom invertebrates, 3 m depth, Pa lm Beach, Fl orida ......................................................................5-4

5.4 Newly settled grunts in the transitional epibenthic plantivore stage (approximately 12 to 20 mm standard length) after settlement and before adoption of demersal feeding (by the late early juvenile stage), Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ...........5-6

5.5 Early life stages of primary reef-associating genera of haemulids and lutjanids of the

western At lantic ............................................................................................................... .......5-6

5.6 Comparisons of abundances of life hist ory stages at two sites in northern Palm Beach County (From: Lind eman and Snyder , 1999)..............................................................5-7

5.7 Spawning coloration in male hairy blenny ( Labrisomus nuchipinnis ), with female in background, 2 m depth, Pecks Lake Reef, southern Martin County, Florida. ......................5-10

5.8 A cryptic hardbottom resident, spotted moray eel ( Gymnothorax moringa ), depth 2 m, MacArthur Beach State Park, Palm Beach County , Florid a.........................................5-10

5.9 Example of nest of the sergeant major ( Abudefduf saxatilis ) on hardbottom, 20 m depth, Jupiter, Palm Beac h County, Fl orida. ........................................................................5-15

5.10 Early juvenile stages of reef herbivo res including surgeonfishes, damselfishes, and parrotfishes on nearshore hardbottom, 3 m depth, Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Fl orida ................................................................................................................ .....5-17

5.11 Relative adult trophic composition as measured by numbers of species per

functional groupi ng ............................................................................................................ ...5-20

6.1 Adult female green turtles (in fore ground and distance) crossing the nearshore hardbottom structure after nesting in Coral Co ve Park, Palm Beach County, Florida...........6-1

6.2 Conceptual model of ontogenetic habitat stages in marine turtles (From: Musick and Limpus, 1997).................................................................................................................. .......6-2

# L i s t o f F i g u r e s ( C o n t i n u e d )

Figure Page

List of Figures x 

### 6.3 North Atlantic Gyre with potential oceani c transport routes for juvenile marine turtles (From: Musick and Limpus, 1997).......................................................................................... 6-3

6.4 General locations of study areas for marine turtles in coastal areas superimposed over distribution of reef-building sabella riid worms along mainland east Florida (Modified from: Zale and Merrifield, 1989) ............................................................................. 6-6

6.5 Loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) resting on offshore hardbottom, Breakers Reef, Palm Beach County , Florida.......................................................................................................... ..6-8

6.6 Juvenile green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) over nearshore hardbottom in Palm Beach County, Fl orida ................................................................................................................ .......6-8

6.7 Juvenile hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) foraging on a tunicate wedged between the rocks on Nursery Reef, Pompano Beach, Flori da (6 m water depth)..............6-12

7.1 Seasonal larval recruitment of the sabellariid worm Phragmatopoma lapidosa in

intertidal and subtidal nearshore hard bottom habitats off Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County , Florida.......................................................................................................... ..7-6

7.2 Newly settled drums ( Pareques species) commonly associate with ledges and triangular cavities at the base of shallow hardbottom structures, such as in this photograph from 2 m depth, Singer Island , Palm Beach Coun ty, Florid a..............................7-7

7.3 Food web among six common decapod crustaceans from worm reefs (From: Gore et al ., 1978)...................................................................................................... 7-10

7.4 Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus , pursuing invertebrate prey, Breakers Reef, approximately 6 m depth, Palm Beach, Fl orida ....................................................................7-11

7.5 A juvenile French angelfish ( Pomacanthus paru ) cleaning an adult gray triggerfish ( Balistes capriscus ) in 4 m depth off Palm Beach, Pa lm Beach County , Florida.................7-12

8.1 Three scenarios of cross-shelf turb idity and sedimentation effects (direct and indirect) for systems subjected to A) no dredging, B) some dredging, and C) semi-continuous dredging (e.g., nor th-central Jupite r Island ) ...........................................8-4

8.2 Artificial mitigation reef and substant ial algal and hydroid growth, 6 m depth, Juno Beach, Palm Beach Co unty, Flor ida ....................................................................................8-11

8.3 Prototype mitigation reef modules made from articulated mat with integral coquina

rock surface ................................................................................................................... .......8-12List of Acronyms xi 

# L i s t o f A c r o n y m s

BACI before-after-control-impact CEM conceptual ecological model CERA comparative ecological risk assessment CL carapace length CPUE catch-per-unit-effort EBM ecosystem-based management ECB East Coast Biologists, Inc.

EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FP fibropapillomatosis

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FWRI Florida Wildlife Research Institute

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

IHB intermediate hardbottom MHW mean high water mark NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHB nearshore hardbottom

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OHB offshore hardbottom PALM propagule and larval measurement SAB South Atlantic Bight SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SCL straight carapace length

SFCREMP Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project SL standard length TL total length UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S Fish and Wildlife ServiceSection 1 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

# Section 1 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida SeascapeSection 1 1-1 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

# C h a p t e r 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Nearshore hardbottom (NHB) habitats take many form s around the Greater Caribbean, from the coquina

and worm reefs of mainland east Florida to the ironshore of the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos to the razor sharp dientes del perro (dog teeth) of northern Cuba (including much of Havana’s shore). There is a deservedly large research literature on a dozen or more geological or biological aspects of the deeper coral reefs of the Florida Keys; yet, there is a paucity of research information in peer-review journals on the approximately 400-km stretch of discontinuous, nearshore ahermatypic reefs of mainland east Florida, at the current northern limits of the subtropical Northwest Atlantic.

Major coastal economies including sun-and-sand tour ism and resident-driven re creational-use markets converge in mainland east Florida, with subtropical to warm temperate beaches intergrading with NHB in some locations between Miami/Dade County and Cape Canaveral ( Figure 1.1 ). The beaches of this region are subject to many challenges to long-term sustainable management. Many of these challenges are amplified by continuing pressures for coastal development, diminishing natural resource status, and the probabilities of sea level rise. This distance is subject to semi-continuous wind and wave events and periodic erosion events. Southeast Florida is now a p ending coastal mega-city. With a continued push of coastal growth northward, over 5 million people will soon exist within a narrow low-elevation corridor between Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties (Wallis et al., 2000).

NHB habitats are the primary natural habitat at depths of 0 to 4 m for many organisms in this region. Currently, the majority of these structures are within a narrow, 200- to 400-m strip of the most nearshore marine waters and display a variety of structural fo rms, ranging from flat expanse with little relief to vertical mounds emergent at low tide to deeper structur es that are much less subject to tidal effects. These habitats are patchily distributed from north to south, composing less than 50% of the alongshore distance of six of the seven county shorelines in t he region and are often separated by kilometers of sand expanses. Indian River County is an exception, with NHB present along well over 50% of its shore, often extending into depths beyond 4 m (V. Kosmynin, Bureau of Coastal Systems, Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP], Tallahassee, FL, per sonal communication). Structural complexity of the rock structures can vary latitudinally ( Figures 1.2 and 1.3 ) and is enhanced by framework-building organisms such as tube-building polychaete worms (G ram, 1965; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Pandolfi et al., 1998; McCarthy, 2001), other invertebrates (e .g., sponges, anthozoans, bryozoans), and macroalgae (Goldberg, 1973; Gore et al., 1978; Nelson, 1989; Nelson and Demetriades, 1992).

Situated among broad expanses of bare sand bottom, NHB structural features potentially serve a variety of ecosystem functions, including settlement and nu rsery areas, spawning sites, feeding areas, and shelter for hundreds of species of resident crabs, worms, shrimp, fishes, and many other animals and plants, many of which occur in close proximity ( Figure 1.4 ). These functions translate into important ecosystem services such as improved water quality, recreational opportunities (e.g., fishing, surfing, diving for local communities), aesthetics, and wildlife habitat ( Figure 1.5 ).Section 1 1-2 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 1.1. Overview of the seven-county project ar ea. Shallow hardbottom distributional information by county is presented in Table 2.1

.Section 1 1-3 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 1.2. Nearshore hardbottom tide pools, Coral Cove County Park, south Jupiter Island, northern Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 1 1-4 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 1.3. Broken pavement struct ure, nearshore hardbottom, centra l Brevard County, Florida. Photo by

K. Lindeman



### .

Figure 1.4. Microhabitat complexity among diverse taxa under a nearshore hardbottom ledge, MacArthur Beach State Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. Sponges, tunicates, hydrozoans, macroalgae, and fish are present. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 1 1-5 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 1.5. Juvenile stage of the green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) feeding on nearshore hardbottom algae, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by K. Jones



### .

Based on consensus federal and state concerns over the declining condition of fisheries, reefs, and other coastal resources, some management policies have migrated towards potentially more precautionary, ecosystem-based management (EBM) tools, ranging fr om marine protected areas to increased protection of high value fishery habitats to interdisciplinary us e of decision support tools to build more logical, multi-stakeholder governance policies (U.S. Executiv e Order on Coral Reefs, 1998; National Academy of Sciences, 1999; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). An ongoing example of the focus on new management approaches involves the recent lis ting of the elkhorn and staghorn corals ( Acropora spp.) as threatened under the Endange red Species Act (ESA). Listing a col onial invertebrate sp ecies that also plays a large role for many other species as a structural habitat feature as threatened is an unprecedented step for ESA. This action has important implications for the management of NHB because the proposed critical habita t designation for ESA includes featur es essential to the conservation of threatened corals, i.e., natural consolidated hardbottom or dead cora l skeleton that is free from fleshy macroalgae cover and sediment cover (South Atlantic Fishery Managem ent Council [SAFMC], in prep.), to maximize the potential for successful recruitment and population growth. The recognition and designation of federal Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is an earlier and broader example of the mandate for more application of EBM tools. NHB of the federal SAFMC’s four-state jurisdictional area (east Florida through North Carolina) was administratively designa ted as EFH in 1998 in response to a statutory mandate from the reauthorization (the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996) of the primary federal fisheries statute (the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976). Federal action agencies that fund, permit, or carry out activities t hat may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential impacts of their actions on EFH, including consultations for co astal construction activities permitted or funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The final rule on EFH determinations recognized that subunits of EFH may be of higher value. Such areas, termed Essential Fish Habitat-Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPCs) by the SAFMC, can be identified using f our criteria from the rule: a) importance of ecological functions; b) sensitivity to human degrada tion; c) probability and extent of effects from development activities; and d) rarity of the habitat. All NHB under SAFMC jurisdiction is also designatedSection 1 1-6 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### as EFH-HAPC (SAFMC, 1998); th is potentially affects some life stages of the majority of the 73 species of 10 families within the SAFMC Snapper-Grouper Management Plan (Lindeman et al., 2000). NHB is also designated as EFH in the SAFMC’s Fishery Management Plan for corals and coral reefs (SAFMC, 1982).

The FDEP is central in efforts to minimize and mitigat e impacts to NHB under Florida state administrative rules defining coastal construction permitting proced ures. In east Florida, the primary source of anthropogenic impacts to NHB are large beach renouris hment projects that involve the offshore dredging and inshore filling of up to 2,300,000 cubic meters of sediments per current project and can potentially result in effects upon various resources and habitats across the shelf (Marszalek et al., 1977; Nelson, 1989; Bush et al., 2004). Increasingly important and expensive issues involve the use of mitigation projects to offset impacts, typically a key step in t he finalization of permitting processes. It is in the best interest of all parties to characterize the functio nal attributes of NHB and apply that information to the evaluation of mitigation alternatives and final decision- making. To this end, the FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems has contracted the production of this report to synthesize available information pertaining to the ecological characteristics and functions of NHB habitat to help guide future management

of these resources.

Although many gaps are present, much information c an be brought to bear on NHB ecological functions from an array of research, industry, and permitting liter ature that includes fields such as organismal and population biology, community ecology, coastal geology, physical oceanography, fishery science, engineering design, and economic valuation. Given the consensus need for EBM, the still complex policy questions involving hardbottom burial and mitigation, and the large but unsynt hesized literature that already exists, this project uses existing and new information to address the following issues:

1. What are specific ecological functions of NHB? 2. What can happen to the coastal ecosystem (broader than NHB) when NHB is lost due to

nourishment? 3. Is the offshore hardbottom (OHB) habitat able to ecologically compensate for the loss of NHB? 4. If the NHB habitat has specific properties and fu nctions that cannot be compensated for by existing OHB habitat, what are the best mitigation alte rnatives for the loss of natural NHB?

To address these issues, we assembled and examined re levant peer-reviewed journals and texts as well as unpublished or gray literature into a document hierarchically examining the primary assemblages, which collectively contain over 1,000 species. In par t to manage this diversity, this synthesis report

consists of three sections. Section 1 ( Chapters 1 and 2 ) contains an introduction to the objectives, a physical description of the hardbottom, and terminology of this document. Section 2 ( Chapters 3 to 6 ) contains assemblage-scale chapters on macroalgae and cyanobacteria, invertebrates, fishes, and marine turtles, reviewing known NHB diversity and functional groupings. Section 3 ( Chapters 7 to 9 ) synthesizes the information from prior chapters to ad dress functional ecology, stress characterization, and mitigation alternatives. The following sections of this chapter characterize NHB and OHB and examine fundamental ecological concepts and te rms as they relate to this synthesis.

1.2 ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

Unlike the physical sciences, where seemingl y immutable laws govern processes, ecology (Shrader-Frechette and McCoy, 1993; Sagoff, 2003) and evolutionary biology (Mayr, 1982, 2004) are founded on concepts. Unfortunately, there is much imprecision with usage and meaning of ecological terms and concepts. Foundational concepts such as diversity, stability, succession, community, and ecosystem can vary greatly in their meaning among ecologists. These problems are considerable, often commented on, and amplified by the difficulties in es tablishing what an ecosystem, community, or habitat actually is among different workers and perspective s (Strong et al., 1984; Underwood, 1986; Noss, 1996; Simberloff, 2004).Section 1 1-7 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### The problem of defining communities was described by Whittaker (1975) as follows: “Most communities intergrade continuously along environmental gradients ra ther than forming distinct clearly defined zones.” A significant example of imprecise meaning was dem onstrated by Grimm and Wissel (1997) for the term stability . They reviewed the ecological literature and found that the term stability had at least 163 definitions based on 70 concepts. This is an unfortunate situation for managers or non-ecologists seeking scientific guidance. They concluded that a six-point checklist had major utility to “... classify ecological systems and provide a sy stem of coordinates for communication” (Grimm and Wissel, 1997). To best manage ambiguity introduced by the imprecise terminology, basic ecological terms used throughout the text are defined in Table 1.1 . We are not proposing these definitions for universal application, they simply have utility to the se ascape and objectives addressed in this study.

Table 1.1. Ecological terms used in the present study. Conceptual background and caveats summarized

in text.

Assemblage – a group of organisms defined according to phylogenet ic, ecological, or other study-dependent criteria.

Community – a group of species living and interacting together within a particular area.

Disturbance – a natural or anthropogenic pert urbation that will disrupt the ex tant ecological processes of assemblages or successional processes within an area.

Diversity – the number of species in a given area and their proportional abundances.

Ecological functions – substantive ecological processes that occur within a community or ecosystem.

Ecological services – the beneficial outcomes resulting from ec ological functions that include human influence (e.g., fishing, snorkeling, bird watching, and nature photography).

Ecosystem – an interacting group of biological communities and abiotic factors within a single geographic area.

Ecosystem engineers – organisms that directly or indirectly modulate the availability of resources to other organisms by modifying, maintaining, or creating habitat architecture.

Keystone species – particular species (or functional group) that in fluence control over crit ical processes that can affect the greater assemblage.

Larval supply – the quantity or potential quantity of invertebrate or fish larvae that are transported into an area when competent to settle, metamorphose, and beg in a benthic-associated existence.

Metapopulation – a species system in which 1) local populations inhabit relatively discrete habitat patches and 2) dispersal among patches allows demographic connectivi ty but local population dynamics remain relatively asynchronous from other populations.

Opportunistic species – species with life history strategies that invo lve facultative, not obligate (dependent), resource use. Such species can utilize a wide array of shelter or food resources.

Recruitment – a generic term referring to organismal entry into a given area. Specific examples include

Larval recruitment – addition of new individuals into a population by arrival of incoming larvae into bottom habitats (e.g., larval settlement).

Inter-habitat recruitment – shifts from one benthic habitat to another; not the first larval settlement event but a

later habitat shift.

Fishery recruitment – the size or age at which individuals are first retained by fishing gears (i.e., when they enter the fishery).

Species richness – the total number of species within a project-specific area.



### 1.3 NEARSHORE, INTERMEDIATE, AND OFFSHORE HARDBOTTOM

For many comparative questions, distinguishing between NHB and OHB habitats is often complicated, particularly among differing latitudes in east Florida. Dozens of physical and biological continua co-vary within a highly dynamic shallow environment that doe s not obey strict rules about depth zonation. Many metrics therefore often respond in quasi- or no n-linear manners to both natural and anthropogenic disturbances, prohibiting discrete line-drawing or flawless terminology. Nevertheless, means to distinguish measurement benchmarks (e.g., NHB and OHB) are logical and necessary to frame and inform answers to complex and interwoven questions about species, communities, fisheries, and coastal
management.Section 1 1-8 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Our focus here is on comparative analyses of macroa lgae, invertebrates, fishes, and marine turtles between NHB (0 to 4 m), intermediate hardbottom (IHB) (4 to 6 m), and OHB (>6 m) depths. The use of the 0 to 4 m depth range is based on the near-max imum depth of many NHB habitats and some associated biotic assemblages in the region. In addi tion, this can be a depth of the toe-of-fill subsequent to dredge-related burial of NHB. Within NHB, it can also be useful to refer to an intertidal area (0 to 1 m) and a subtidal area (1 to 4 m), which can be further subdivided in the case of some invertebrate and algal species. Among and within these intervals ar e gradual transitions in many population- and community-scale metrics, some of utility in examining ecological functions. We re-emphasize that the depth "boundaries" between NHB, IHB, and OHB are artificial benchmarks to allow some measureable stratification of a highly variable abiotic and biotic continuum; they are not self-contained zones.

Currently, the majority of typically uncovered NHB st ructural features are with in 200 m of the mean high water mark (MHW), though there are notable except ions in which hardbottom structure is emergent west-to-east through two to three depth areas (NHB, IHB, and OHB), including Riomar Reef in St. Lucie County, Bathtub Reef and Peck’s Lake Reef in Martin County, Breakers Reef in Palm Beach County, and

wide NHB eastern extensions in the area of Br oward County (Fort Lauderdale). More detailed examination of NHB, IHB, and OHB occurrence and latitudinal variation is provided in Chapter 2

.

There can be substantial physical and biotic differences between NHB in the intertidal zone (0 to 1 m) and the subtidal zone (approximately 1 to 4 m). Bo th zones are populated by disturbance-mediated assemblages, and biotic distributional patterns can va ry due to the dynamics of the physical environment. Disturbance examples include storms and the frequency and duration of hardbottom burial (more pronounced in fall and winter periods, and varying by latitude). The issue of ephemeral/seasonal changes in NHB is relevant to analys es of habitat functions discussed in Chapter 7

.

1.4 SPECIES: WINDOWS INTO ASSEMBLAGES?

The use of particularly prominent species to stra tify the analysis and/or management of assemblage complexity has been attempted for many decades in theoretical and applied ecology, and focal or indicator species have been discussed in detail. Sim berloff (1998) reviewed a variety of constructs that have evolved for species-enhanced EBM, often based on single-species management models. Unusually representative or analytica lly valuable species constructs included indicator, flagship, umbrella, and keystone species used as diverse surrogates or r epresentatives of a much wider array of species from local assemblages at risk from environmental impacts. Indicator species were considered tenuous, often because of imprecise metr ics of performance a nd unclear obje ctives (Simberloff, 1998), though various reviews and many studies still employ differing types of indicator sp ecies (Zacharias and Roff, 2001). Umbrella species, those needing so much hab itat for protection that ot her species are protected as well, could be useful, but are typically constrai ned in reflecting fundamental community functions and measurement, as are flagship species (Walpole and Leader-Williams, 2002). A possible umbrella species in NHB areas is the sabellariid reef-building worm Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( Chapters 4 and 7 ).

In part based on the work of Paine (1969) on nearsho re rocky intertidal community changes, Simberloff (1998) concluded that keystone species played the mo st significant role in influencing assemblage structure and could potentially be usef ul tools for multispecies management. A fundamental criterion is that removal of the keystone species should substantia lly shift assemblage structure. In addition, the roles of some keystone specie s are highly context-dependent (Simberloff, 1998). Based on empirical information from Australian reefs, Bellwood (2 008) has identified a phenomenon termed sleeping functional groups or species. In one case, a siganid r abbitfish of little prior significance in most metrics assumed a keystone-like role when the long-standing system of macro-herbivo rous fishes changed in response to a fishing-induced phase shift.

Zach arias and Roff (2001) concluded that the keystone species concept was both relatively strong and of varying utility in management. They also concluded th at it was possible to define and measure indicator species under some conditions and suggested two categories: composition indicators and condition indicators. The former species reflect a specific ni che or range of measurable environmental tolerances and are relatively independent of sample size. Condition indicators are species that somehow “provideSection 1 1-9 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### an assessment over a range of stress” and can “di fferentiate between natural and anthropogenic stress” (Zacharias and Roff, 2001). With the exception of keys tone species, we do not currently use any of these other terms. However, some NHB species may have utility as indi cator species in some studies (e.g., black margate, Anisotremus surinamensis

, as a composition indicator), if specific indicator criteria

are well-defined.

1.5 EQUILIBRIUM AND SCALE

In addition to ambiguity in concepts and terms, agr eement between theory and application in ecology has been generally lacking. Conceptual paradigms in ecology today may be broadly divided into equilibrium and non-equilibrium views (Wiens, 1984; Walter and Hengeveld, 2000; Rohde, 2005; Wallington et al., 2005), and, as with most dichotomies, the truth pr obably lies somewhere in between the two poles. Theory formulated before t he 1990’s was largel y based on notions of equilibrium in natural assemblages (e.g., MacArthur, 1972). For example, this paradigm viewed ecological succession as a linear sequence of events leading to a stable climax, with any dist urbance to that sequence considered something outside of the “system.” This viewpoint has been replaced by more probabilistic and non-equilibrium viewpoints (e.g., Botkin, 1990; Sale, 1991; Shrader-Frechette and McCoy, 1993; Drury, 1999; Rohde, 2005; Wallington et al., 2005).

In the non-equilibrium world, disturbance is cons idered an inherent property of the ecosystem and equilibria are artifacts of obse rvation, not real propertie s of the system. Unfortun ately, many of these new ideas have not been translated into the regulatory ar ena (Wallington et al., 2005). Schrader-Frechette and McCoy (1993) summarized key conceptual issues and emphasized the importance of case study approaches, contending that ecological problem-s olving would be most effective when ecological knowledge (natural history), not ecological theory, was applied.

In this report, a basic conceptual assumption supporte d by the data is that biota inhabiting NHB are not in any kind of static or spatial equilibrium over long time scales. We state this now and throughout the text to ensure that managers realize the implications of a strict equilibrium stance ( Chapters 7

, 8 , and 9 ) when assessing impacts and the resu lts of mitigative measures employed to offset those impacts (Wiens and Parker, 1995; Parker and Wiens, 2005).

Another fundamental component is that scale and as sessment of equilibrium is inherently based on the scales of the system under examinat ion. The structure of all levels of ecological hierarchies depends upon spatial and temporal scale. Consideration of spatial scale is paramount to an understanding of assemblage patch dynamics, particularly in distur bance-mediated environments such as NHB (Levin and Paine, 1974; Pickett et al., 1989; Wiens, 1989; Kot liar and Wiens, 1990; Wu and Loucks, 1995). The relationships between species richness and functional diversity (Hooper et al., 2002) can be tenuous but potentially useful in comparing NHB and OHB functional equivalencies and dissimilarities.

1.6 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

Several project objectives involve identifying ecological f unctions within natural and artificial habitat types and the subsequent comparison of functions among subr egions. Function can be addressed in terms of processes and in terms of functional groups of char acteristics and similar species (sometimes known as guilds) (Wilson, 1999). A major challenge at t he interface of ecological research and applied management involves the difficulties in merging the conceptual landscape implied by the term function with immediate political management needs.

The conceptual underpinnings and terminology associated with the word function are highly variable, encompassing dozens of metrics. At l east four broad meanings for the term function were identified by Jax (2005): 1) processes of changes of state (e.g., organismal feeding); 2) the merging of multiple processes in a whole system context (e.g., system f unctioning); 3) ecological roles within systems (e.g., functional groups such as producers or consumers); and 4) p articular services of the system to humans and society (e.g., ecosystem services such as pollination and photosynthesis). Based on a comprehensive examination of the literature on NHB and ongoing examination of much of the literatureSection 1 1-10 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### on functions and functional groups, we identified nominal functional groupings within shallow hardbottom assemblages. Studies of habitats often have focused on two basic categories of functional attributes: 1) structure and shelter resource use and 2) feeding assemblage relationships. We use the following non-exhaustive categories that are compatible with the framework employed by the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) protocol (e.g., Cont inental Shelf Associates, Inc. et al., 2006).

• Structure-shelter associated functional groupings . Examples include groups of species sharing one or more of the following attributes and associations with NHB through OHB:

− Habitat engineering functions (keystone framework builder);

− Nesting and spawning site usage;

− Substrate as attachment resource for sessile organisms;

− Settlement and post-settlement nursery area usage; and

− Juvenile and adult patterns of cross-shelf distribution.

• Trophic functional groupings . Food capture patterns, larger energetic fluxes, and physical dynamics drive food web dynamics (e.g., intercommunity nut rient exchange functions of carnivores and herbivores on NHB and OHB [Parrish, 1989]), such as the following:

− Herbivory;

− Carnivory;

− Autotrophy;

− Detritivory and omnivory; and

− Cleaning symbioses.

The relationship between ecological function analysis and societal measures has a considerable history (Hooper et al., 2002).

Human societies can describe functions within an ecosystem and functions of the whole system (Jax, 2005). Tens of thousands of year-round local residents use the beach not only for sunbathing but also to take advantage of the nearshore waters, occasional reefs, and many coastal recreational activities ( Figure 1.6 )

available in the warmest waters of the continental U.S., which also offer some of the highest coastal biodiversity. The services provided by nearshore reefs for humans are often family-based and multi-generational, including fishing, diving, surfing, and other forms

of recreational resource use. Figure 1.6. Anglers fishin g from nearshore hardbottom to capture pompano and other coastal pelagic species known to occur near sand-rock interfaces, central Brevard County, Florida. Photo by K. Lindeman



### .Section 1 2-1 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

# C h a p t e r 2

S h a l l o w H a r d b o t t o m o f E a s t F l o r i d a a n d t h e
R e g i o n a l S h e l f S e t t i n g

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The study region is bounded on the south by Govern ment Cut, the southern boundary of Miami Beach, ( Figure 1.1 ). To the north, the study region is bounded by Port Canaveral. There are geological, biological, and climatic differences between the northern and southern portions of the study region. For many coastal marine organisms, the zoogeographi c break between subtropical and warm temperate regions typically occurs between the Jupiter Inlet and Cape Canaveral, approximately 230 km to the north (Briggs, 1974; Gilmore, 1995). Transitional warm temperate, wide-shelf systems compared to subtropical, narrow-shelf systems are increasingly represented north and south of the Jupiter Inlet.

Seven of Florida’s 35 counties with marine shores are within the study region. Table 2.1 provides the shoreline lengths and NHB acreages per year availa ble. Brevard and Palm Beach Counties have the longest shorelines within the full project area, while the shorelines of the remaining counties are highly similar in length, ranging from 34.5 to 38.4 km. Primary economic drivers are concentrated in the southern three counties and pushing economic growth and coastal construction into northern counties where relatively less-disturbed coastal reaches can be found. There are substantial structural and NHB areal variations present across the 355-km north-south project reach, as well as considerable variation in the availability of areal NHB data ( Table 2.1 ). The information in Table 2.1 is further evaluated in

Section 2.1.2 and later chapters.

Table 2.1. Study counties from north to south with shallow hardbottom acreage by depth strata by year. Most data were provided from county agencies.

County Latitude at

Southern Border (N) Shoreline Length km (mi) % Shoreline in Study Region Total

Hardbottom

(acres) Location c Year

Brevard 27° 51 ́ 114.9 (71.4) 32 42.3 R-70 to R-118 2004

Indian River 27° 33 ́ 36.1 (22.4) 10 278.5 a R-37 to R-49 2007

St. Lucie 27° 15 ́ 34.6 (21.5) 10 56.6 R-77 to R 118 2008

Martin 26° 58 ́ 34.5 (21.4) 10 N/A N/A N/A

27.0 R-59 to R-71 2007

337.4 County 2004

283.3 County 2003

4.2 R-59 to R-71 2003

361.3 County 2001

375.0 County 2000

8.8 R-59 to R-71 2000

16.8 R-59 to R-71 1998 Palm Beach 26° 19 ́ 72.8 (45.2) 21

444.1 b County 1993

Broward 25° 58 ́ 38.4 (23.9) 11 125.2 County N/A

Miami-Dade 25° 46 ́ 23.6 (14.7) d 7 N/A N/A N/A

Total Shoreline Length --- 354.9 (220.5) 100% --- ---

a Mapped out only to ~450 m offshore; hardbottom beyond this is not quantified.

b Includes areas within inlets that were not counted in other years.

c Florida Department of Environmental Protection Reference Monument.

d Measured to southernmost point of Miami Beach (north side of Government Cut).

N/A = Not available.Section 1 2-2 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### 2.2 GEOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF NEARSHORE HARDBOTTOM

Most NHB structures of mainland east Florida are current marine components of the Anastasia formation, which is composed of sediments and mollusc shells (particularly the coquina clam Donax ). This material accumulated on shorelines during the last Pleistocene interglacial period approximately 80,000 to 120,000 years ago and was later lithified during low s ea level stands (Cooke and Mossom, 1929; Cooke,
1945; Duane and Meisburger, 1969). The bulk of the NHB along mainland east Florida is composed primarily of this lithified shellrock; however, there is a transition in the area of Deerfield Beach in north Broward County where the Anastasia formation intergr ades with and may be replaced to the south by the Miami Oolite formation and other features (Cooke, 1945; Hoffmeister, 1974). These limestone strata are significant features with east-west reaches that ex tend across coastal east Florida and still represent terrestrial landscape features. Prominent coastal ri dges of these features occur along U.S. Highway 1 throughout the study region (e.g., Rockledge, Brev ard County and Silver Ridge, Coconut Grove, Miami-Dade County).

NHB habitats are the natural ahermaty pic reef structures at depths of 0 to 4 m of this region, and a diverse array of users refer to them by names that include coquina reefs, worm rock, Anastasia outcrops, worm reef, and nearshore reefs. In some areas, NHB reaches heights of 1.5 to 2 m above the bottom and is highly convoluted ( Figure 1.2 ). In other areas, NHB is low-relief and forms pavement-like surfaces, often with small overhangs and crevices ( Figure 1.3 ). Currently, little in formation is readily

available on in-situ differences in physical and biotic properties of submerged Anastasia NHB compared to submerged NHB of differing origin in Broward County.

NHB habitats are patchily distributed among ex panses of relatively barren sediments ( Table 2.1 ; Figure 2.1 ) and commonly possess worm reef structure in shallow areas from southern Palm Beach County to the north. NHB habitats of the region show very low coral diversities, yet have moderate to high diversities of other invertebrates, algae, and fishes. Nelson (1989) recorded 325 species of invertebrates and plants from NHB habitats at Sebast ian Inlet. Hard corals are rare or uncommon in many NHB patches due to high turbidities and wave energy, but several species can be locally present (e.g., Oculina diffusa and O. varicosa in St. Lucie County; Acropora cervicornis in Broward County). Both

Siderastrea radians and S. siderea can occur on shallow hardbottom in all counties from Brevard to Dade. A locally prominent contributor to habitat st ructure and biological diversity of NHB along east Florida is the polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa , also known as P. caudata (Nelson and Demetriades, 1992; Kirtley, 1994; Drake et al., 2007). Worms of this species (Family Sabellariidae) settle on hardbottom and glue together sedimentary particles of specific sizes and origins to build sand tubes, forming shallow reefs in intertidal and shallow subtidal hardbottom areas (Gram, 1965; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Pandolfi et al., 1998; McCarthy, 2001). This species meets all the attributes and is the primary habitat engineer (Jones et al., 1994; Colema n and Williams, 2003; Jones et al., 2004) of NHB

communities in mainland east Florida. Its dist ribution extends southward to Santa Catarina, Brazil (Kirtley, 1994), though it is often uncommon or absent on many islands and the Florida Keys (McCarthy et al., 2008). There are significant differences in the invertebrate fauna of intertidal NHB habitats in comparison to subtidal NHB habitats, driven in part by the high abundance of P. lapidosa in intertidal NHB habitats (McCarthy et al., 2003; also see Chapters 4

, 5 , and 7 ).

In east Flori da, the structure provided by NHB and associated habitat engineers (e.g., polychaete worms) supports a higher diversity and abundance of many ma rine invertebrate species than that of neighboring sand or hardbottom habitats (Gore et al., 1978; Nelson, 1989). The differences between areas with and without hardbottom can exceed an order of magnitude in terms of both species richness and abundance. At least 8 federal- and 15 state-listed species are associated with nearshore reefs off east Florida (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 1999), and NHB is considered an important source of food and shelter for juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) (Ehrhart et al., 1996; Wershoven and Wershoven, 1989; Holloway-Adkins, 2001).Section 1 2-3 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 2.1. Aerial image of Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin County, Florida.Section 1 2-4 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Prior to the current synthesis report, NHB was reco rded to provide shelter for over 325 invertebrate species (Gore et al., 1978; Nelson, 1988, 1989; Nelson and Demetriades, 1992) and 192 fish species (Gilmore, 1977; Gilmore et al., 1981; Lindeman, 1997a; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). Substantial geological evidence suggests that NHB and worm reefs are also important in the maintenance and persistence of beaches and barrier islands by ret ention of sediments and the progradation of beaches (Kirtley, 1966, 1967; Multer and Milliman, 1967; Gr am, 1965; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Mehta, 1973; Kirtley, 1974; Pandolfi et al., 1998). It is important to emphasize, however, that the vast majority of hardbottom is not encrusted by nor derived from tube worms ( Figure 2.2 ). Worm reefs also can monopolize space, precluding other algae and sessile invertebrates.

Figure 2.2. Nearshore hardbottom algal and inverteb rate colonization on ledge exposed at full moon low tide, Brevard County, Florida. Algal species represented include Caulerpa racemosa, C. prolifera, Ulva lactuca, Laurencia sp ., Aghardiella subulata, Gelidiopsis sp., and others. Cuban stone crabs ( Menippe nodifrons ) are visible in ledge on lower left. Photo by K. Lindeman



### .

NHB structures are largely carb onate composed via lithification of biogenic components (often calcareous microstructures of the small coquina bivalve Donax ) and current framewor k-building organisms, particularly P. lapidosa (= caudata ). Is the structure typical of NHB properly termed a reef? A fundamental way to examine this question is to go to the original source marine geological literature that described east Florida NHB. Early papers refer to NHB structures as reefs with geological and biological rationale, often including the role of the sabellariid worm species P. lapidosa in beach stabilization (Gram, 1965; Kirtley, 1967; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968). T hese structures reflect and absorb wave energy, influence sediment movements, maintain structur e position over time, support substantial biotic populations, and display fundamental attributes of ahermaty pic, inorganic, or marginal reefs as described in Gram (1965), Kirtley and Tanner (1968), Fagerstrom (1987), Pandolfi et al. (1998), and Kleypas et al. (2001). Ichthyofaunal compositions are dominated by reef-associated species (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004).Section 1 2-5 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### The term NHB is also applied in the Florida Ke ys (Hoffmeister, 1974; Chiappone and Sullivan, 1996). NHB habitats of the Florida Keys can differ both geol ogically and biologically from mainland east Florida areas ( Table 2.2 ). Emergent upland components of the Flori da Keys are derived from ancient reefs of the Florida Reef Tract and typically do not have size able beaches nor a nearshore current regime for delivery of beach-quality sediments. Compared to ma inland east Florida, most Florida Keys NHB habitats are distributed among areas with higher organic sediments, increased seagrasses, more corals, and reduced wave conditions, though there are exceptions offs hore (Ginsburg, 1956). In contrast to the Keys, beach systems are common in mainland east Florida areas and their geologically distinct, sedimentary barrier islands ( Table 2.2 ).

Table 2.2. Geological and biological comparisons be tween nearshore areas of the mainland east Florida coast and the northern margin of the Florida reef tract and the Florida Keys (Adapted from: Cooke, 1945; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Hoffmeist er, 1974). Transition areas are given for

each attribute.

Geological or Biological Component Mainland

North of Transition Geographic

Transition Areas Florida Keys

South of Transition

Island type Sedimentary barrier islands Key Bi scayne – Soldier Key Coral/limestone islands

Bedrock type Anastasia limestone Palm Beach – Broward Counties Miami Oolite and limestone

Sabellariid worm reefs Locally common Broward – Dade Counties Rare

Shallow corals Uncommon Key Biscayne – Soldier Key Common

Seagrasses Absent Miami Beach – Fisher Island Abundant

Predominant sediment type Quartz – calcium carbonate Ke y Biscayne – Soldier Key Calcium carbonate – quartz

Predominant sediment size Coarse Key Biscayne – Soldier Key Fine

Wave energy Intermediate to high Martin – Broward Counties Low



### 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF SHALLOW HARDBOTTOM IN EAST FLORIDA, MIAMI TO

CANAVERAL

Recent information on distributions and areal amounts of shallow hardbottom habitats are housed most comprehensively at the county scale from Miami to Canaveral (Dade thro ugh Brevard Counties, respectively) by the responsible county agencies and, at the federal level, by the USACE and NMFS in

the form of various National Environmental Polic y Act (NEPA)-associated documents from past dredge and fill projects. Table 2.1 summarizes some of the currently available macro-level information on NHB acreage and distributions. The cons truction of coastal inlets probably has contributed to the exposure of NHB in some areas by interrupting the littoral mo vement of sand. Based on available information (i.e., county mapping products), the counties with t he most NHB are Palm Beach and Indian River, each appearing to have at least 250 acres of areal coverage. This value is essentially an average of a single snapshot (aerials) taken annually in each county. Broward has significant amounts of IHB at depths of 4 to 6 m, with NHB as well. NHB is distributed near ridge complexes of substantial geomorphological complexity that occupy at least 125 acres (K. B anks [Broward County Department of Environmental Protection], B. Walker [National Coral Reef Inst itute, Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center], and Q. Robertson [Coastal Planning & Engineer ing, Inc.], pers. comm.). Martin and St. Lucie counties have comparatively less NHB, but can have su bstantial outcrops. Dade currently has no shallow NHB (<4 m water depth), though hardbottom with limit ed epibiota occurs in some areas around the 4 m depth contour, often grading into more densely colonized hardbottom by 6 m depths (B. Flynn, Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resour ces Management, pers. comm.). Brevard’s NHB is very discrete, consisting of an approximately 40-acre system in the central part of the county that does not intergrade with deeper hardbottom.

Table 2.1 is not comprehensive, as some data from aerial overflight imagery are not available (or have not been digitized to delineate hardbottom), and a full survey of other information sources (e.g., past NEPA documents) was outside the scop e of this project. In additi on to data summaries such as

Table 2.1

, aerial imagery can be assembled to show NHB distribution patterns among the seven countiesSection 1 2-6 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### for the years when mapping was conducted. In additi on, there are substantial state and federal efforts underway both to map hardbottom resources as funding develops and also to gather existing information in publicly accessible manners (e.g., www.safmc.net ).

Evaluating NHB areal distributions and biological rela tionships is complicated by the burial dynamics of lower elevation NHB outcrops result ing from the many storms and wa ve events in the region (Nelson, 1989; McCarthy et al., 2003; Bush et al., 2004; Contin ental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006; Lybolt and Tate, 2008; Montague, 2008). Therefore, the presence of hardbottom in mapping efforts is seasonally and annually variable according to trends in local wind an d wave activity and extra-regional storms; such trends may often vary interannually as well. Imagery of the system shows substantial hardbottom structures and their point-in-time posi tion on the seascape for multi-year time steps, as at Singer Island in Palm Beach County where acreage has increased approximately three-fold in recent years ( Figure 2.3 ). Typically, more NHB is exposed during summer and lower overall nearshore energy periods (also the only feasible photographic periods for most areas).

The South Atlantic Bottom Mapping Work Group of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission generated hardbottom mapping information for the South Atlantic Bight, including the study region from the beach to a depth of 200 m. The project end ed in 2007, and the information is available at

www.safmc.net

. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 are from a summary of NHB and OHB mapping information from

the Southeast Area Monito ring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) (Perkins et al., 1997). There are

fundamental differences in cross-shelf NHB habi tat distribution among counties (e.g., Broward and northern Palm Beach). In Broward, the level of har dbottom structural overlap of the NHB, IHB, and OHB depth ranges exceeds that of many reaches to the nort h, with particular exceptions in southern Martin

and Indian River Counties.

Depth contours at 4 and 6 m are highly variable in terms of distance from shore throughout the study region. This complicates efforts to segregate pa tterns according to the nominal NHB, IHB, and OHB categories ( Figure 2.1 ). The available data by county are al so patchy in quantity and quality, and the ability to accurately segregate data by the three nomi nal categories currently is not possible for most counties. Nonetheless, there are many areas of Pa lm Beach and Brevard Counties, for example, where

the NHB is not continuous with IHB and OHB. The NHB, IHB, and OHB designations are useful benchmarks for beginning to examine the complex inte rrelationships between the shallowest hardbottom assemblages and those in depths greater than 6 m. The challenges are amplified by the absence of depth-stratified information for most taxa and localitie s as well as by the dynamic spatial environment.

2.4 OFFSHORE HARDBOTTOM AREAS

Recognizing the difficulties in defining depth boundaries discussed earlier, this study uses a depth range of >6 m to represent OHB. There are many ways in which to characterize hardbottom and live coral habitats from >6 m to the shelf edge, with most ava ilable studies concentrated on the southern part of the project region (Goldberg, 1973; Moyer et al., 2003; Banks et al., 2008). We refer to shallow OHB (6 to 10 m) and midshelf OHB (>10 m) based on physic al and biotic characteristics that are actually distributed across a continuum (see Chapter 1 regarding the high permeabilit y of these dept h “ranges”). In the present study, our emphasis is almost entir ely on shallow OHB compared to midshelf OHB. Complex physical and biological assemblage relationships exist between OHB and the intermediate, transitional depth range for hardbottom, 4 to 6 m (IHB). OHB from shallow and midshelf areas potentially receives a portion of the grunt, wrasse, and other species of fish and invertebrate settlers that survive and eventually redistribute into deeper waters, sometimes across the broader shelf. These relationships are discussed by major biotic group in Chapters 3

, 4

, 5 , and 6 , as well as in Chapter 7 with respect to ecological functions.

The relict Holocene reefs from Palm Beach to Da de Counties are the most-examined within the study region, with Lighty (1977), Moyer et al. (2003), and B anks et al. (2007) referring to shore-parallel inner, middle, and outer reefs. The latter papers also refer to a nearshore beach ridge complex (see Chapter 1 ); this is the depth zone of NHB. Though not fr ame-building, the hardbottom across the three reef lines is colonized by reef fauna characteristic of the Caribbean (Goldberg, 1973; Banks et al., 2008).Section 1 2-7 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 2.3. Aerial views of nearshore hardbottom st ructures and sediment change at northern Singer Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, 2003-2007.Section 1 2-8 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 2.4. Broward and northern Dade County plots from a summary of nearshore and offshore hardbottom information from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) (Perkins et al., 1997).Section 1 2-9 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 2.5. Indian River County hardbottom from a summary of nearshore and offshore hardbottom (From: Perkins et al., 1997).Section 1 2-10 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### The inner reef crests at a depth of approximately 8 m and consists of discontinuous patch reef outcrops along a shore-parallel axis that periodically form elongate reefs (Banks et al., 2008), representing the OHB and IHB components of the southern project region in the present study. Throughout most of Palm Beach County, however, no inner or middle reefs are found (Banks et al., 2008). The nature and extent of shallow OHB varies with latitude along the study area. In some areas, most notably Breakers Reef, Palm Beach; Bathtub Reef and Peck’s Lake, Stuart; and Riomar, Vero Beach ( Figure 2.5 ), hardbottom extends seaward from NHB to OHB depth ranges. In most other areas, NHB is not continuous with hardbottom in greater depths.

Epibiota colonizing shallow OHB vary in taxonomic composition and diversity in both north-south and cross-shelf directions. Summaries for the Palm Beach through Dade County area are provided in Banks et al. (2008). Variations in light penetration, wate r temperature, sedimentation, and circulation are particularly present in shallow hardbottom areas an d greatly influence the st ructure and dynamics of epibiotic assemblages (Rogers, 1990). Moyer et al. (2003) found substantial differences in benthic

communities between the inner reef and the middle and out er reefs. For example, densities of octocorals and sponges were lower on the inner reef, presumably in response to greater environmental variability in

shallower waters. There has been little directed study of hardbottom and reef structures and their epibiotic assemblages north of the Palm Beach area. General trends such as the north-south gradient in species diversity and basic taxonomic composition have been described peripherally for some epibiotic taxa, including corals and algae (Humm, 1969; Briggs, 1974; van den Hoek, 1975; Searles and Schneider, 1980; Jaap, 1984), but specific details of most assemblages in 6 to 10 m depths within the region remain poorly known. Taxa-specific di scussions of known shallow OHB, IHB, and NHB associations among fishes, algae, invertebrat es, and marine turtles are presented in Section 2 and summarized in terms of functional ecological attributes in Section 3

.

2.5 REGIONAL SETTING: THE FLORIDA CU RRENT AND THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

The continental shelf and associated waters off t he southeastern U.S., collectively termed the South Atlantic Bight, extend from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to southeast Florida. Shelf widths vary from just 3 km off Palm Beach County, Florida to a maximum of 120 km off Georgia. Climatically and biogeogr aphically, the area contains the transition region between many tropical and warm temperate organisms of the Greater Caribbean and the Carolinas. Influences on oceanographic regimes of the continental shelf of mainland east Florida include 1) activities of the Florida Current and meanders of the western frontal boundary; 2) se asonal heating and cooling; and 3) bottom topography. Winds and tides can also modify circulation patterns, especially nearshore or where density gradients are weak (SAFMC, in prep.). Relatively brief consideration of the underlying oceanographic processes in this faunal break is provided below. More thorough summaries for the southern and central project regions exist within Smith (1983), Miller and Lee (1995), Banks et al. (2008), and Entrix, Inc. (2008).

2.5.1 Currents and Upwelling Events

The driving oceanographic characteri stic of the project area is the northerly Florida Current and the dynamics of its warm, fast-moving waters derived from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean through the Yucatan Channel. In southeast Florida, coastal circulation is strongly related to the dynamics of the Florida Current and wave oscillations in the relatively narrow trough between Florida and the Bahamas (Soloviev et al., 2007). In the vicinity of the Jupiter and St. Lucie Inlets, the continental shelf platform abruptly extends wide to the east, deflecting the Florida Current much further offshore than in southeast mainland Florida ( Figure 2.6 ), influencing the assemblages that

utilize shallow hardbottom in manners examined in Sections 2 and 3

. Figure 2.6. Florida Current (shown in orange) with offshore

deflection near the southern boundary of Martin County, Florida (Image from: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

A dministration )

. St. Lucie InletSection 1 2-11 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Upwelling occurs in the region from wind, eddies, or current meanders that displace surface waters and drive replacement by cooler and usually nutrient-rich water from deeper depths (Atkinson and Targett, 1983; Smith, 1983). The location of the western frontal boundary of the Florida Current varies considerably both north and south of the inflection of the current. Small frontal eddies and meanders propagate along the western edge of t he Florida Current, typically at 1- to 2-week intervals. These features can transport significant nutrient and plankton patches into shallower water and contribute to small-scale upwelling of nutrients along midshelf and shelf break areas of this South Atlantic Bight subregion. Seasonal upwelling events t hat persist for 1 to 3 weeks typically occur during the late summer along some areas of east Florida (Smith, 1983).

A high number of upwelling events occurred off north Hutchinson Island in the summer of 2003. Six events occurred with low temperatures ranging from 16°C to 21°C. Upwelling periods in early and late summer averaged 12 and 5 days, respectively (McCar thy, 2005). Analyses suggest that the longer upwelling events in early summer eventually resulted in similar surface and bottom temperatures. Shorter upwelling events during late summer appear to have resulted in stronger thermoclines because of less time for mixing between surface and bottom waters. Anal ysis of local meteorological data suggests that wind stress was not favorable to upwelling duri ng most of the summer yet may have played a supplementary role in producing some of the upwelling events (McCarthy, 2005). In contrast to transient upwelling events, there is at least one area on the no rthern boundary of the study region where upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water is more permanent, an area of diverging isobaths just to the north of Cape Canaveral (SAFMC, in prep.).

In Broward County, in southern portion of the project area, the Florida Current ty pically flows toward the

north or northeast and the current from the surface to the bottom flows relatively consistently in the same direction. However, countercurrents have been re corded where the near-bottom currents flowed in a southerly direction (Soloviev et al., 2007). Strongest currents usually occurred near the surface, with a mean speed of approximately 3.4 ft/sec and a peak speed of greater than 6. 8 ft/sec (Entrix, Inc., 2008). When the western edge of the current was closest to shore, the currents were strongest. When the location shifted to the east, currents sometimes weakened and for brief periods reversed and flowed southward. These oscillations were on the order of 14 days; however, 1- to 2-day periods were also

recorded.

The complexity of the system constrains full underst anding of the effects of current behavior, winds, and upwelling on primary production and cr oss-shelf fluxes of nutrients and plankton. Biophysical simulations at mesoscale-resolution compared well with in-situ observations of shelfbreak upwelling on daily to seasonal timescales in east Florida (Fiechter and Mo oers, 2007). Nitrate inputs associated with upwelling were mainly due to bottom Ekman transport as the Flor ida Current jet interacts with the shelf topography and summer winds that favor coastal upwelling. Upwelling-induced additions of nutrients and phytoplankton blooms can possibly increase decapod larval survival (Pitts, 1999). Brooke (2002) suggests that deep Oculina colonies could provide la rvae to shallow-water colonies during upwelling events. Hare and Cowen (1996) examine a variety of physical transport mechanisms associated with ichthyoplankton transport and survival to the north of the study area.

2.5.2 Tides, Wind Events, Wave Activity, and Hurricanes

The semidiurnal tides of the South Atlantic Bight vary in manners that can correspond to shelf width. The maximum coastal tides of 2.2 m occur at Savannah, G eorgia, where the shelf is widest, and decrease to 1.1 m at Cape Canaveral. NHB is exposed at low tides in a variety of locations, some of which are well-known local geologic features with intertidal habi tat structure, e.g., Batht ub Reef in Martin County ( Figure 2.7 ). Winds, in general, are from the northeast in fall-winter and from the southwest or southeast in spring-summer, but they can switch directions and form a new pattern for five or more days with little predictability, and with rapid increases in nearshore coastal energetics vi a wind and wave activity. Waves in the area are often wind-derived, typically from the north and northeast. Approximately half of the waves approach from the northeast; the largest wave s app roach from the north. Below northern Palm Beach County, wave development from the east an d southeast is impeded by the Little and Great Bahama Banks. Banks et al. (2008) provide a rec ent summary of climate and wind seasonality in the southern and central project region.Section 1 2-12 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 2.7. Southward view of Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin County, Florida. Worm rock ( Phragmatopoma lapidosa ) mounds are visible on the lower left. An aerial view of this intertidal reef system is shown in Figure 2.1

. Photo by D. McCarthy



### .

During large wave events, often associated with nor ’easters during fall and winter atmospheric cold fronts, substantial erosional events can occur. In the background, relatively typical summer-winter seasonal beach profiles are seen. Latitudinal diffe rences in the impacts of these events are seen between Canaveral and Miami. Primary differences include 1) the very wide to very narrow north to south shelf width, with major shelf width change in the S t. Lucie Inlet area, and 2) the positioning of the northern Bahama Banks off of southeast Florida, particularly fr om north Palm Beach County to the south. This wave shadow influences a variety of coastal proc ess and sedimentary phenomena in southeast Florida.

Hurricanes and tropical storms can produce intense wind-generated wave action during late summer and early fall, resulting in significant changes to the circ ulation in a given area. Under normal conditions, the Florida Current would be the dominant transport mechanism, with wave and tidal action having less influence. During a storm event, however, water circulation and transport are dominated by waves and tidal surge. During a hurricane with peak winds of at least 86 mph, the near-bottom currents on the inner- and mid-shelf approximately triple comp ared to non-storm conditions, increasing from approximately 0.5 to 1.5 ft/sec. During 2004 and 2 005, the number of hurricane and tropical storm paths that impacted mainland east Florida ( Figure 2.8 ) was higher than had been observed for many years. This hurricane activity may have contributed to higher post-hurricane NHB exposure in some areas (for example, at Singer Island, Palm Beach County, Figure 2.3 ).Section 1 2-13 Project Objectives and Nearshore Hardbottom within the East Florida Seascape 

### Figure 2.8. Paths of hurricanes and tropical storms impacting east Florida during A) 2005 and B) 2004. 

### B) A)Section 2 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

# Section 2 Organismal Assemblages of E ast Florida Shallow HardbottomSection 2 3-1 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

# C h a p t e r 3

M a c r o a l g a e a n d C y a n o b a c t e r i a

3.1 INTRODUCTION

NHBs along the east Florida coast provide substrat e for the recruitment and growth of a number of species of macroalgae and cyanobacteria that se rve a variety of functions. Macroalgae and cyanobacteria are primary producers in the marine environment and can form the foundation of a highly complex, diverse, and dynamic trophic food we b (Duarte, 2000; Paerl, 2000; Kang et al., 2008).

The abundance and diversity of macroalgae vary subst antially within the NHB region with changes in latitude from Cape Canaveral to Key Biscayne. Of the varying factors along the east Florida coast that influence macroalgal species distribution in NHB, one of the most important likely is proximity to the relatively warm, oligotrophic waters of the Florida Current. Other important factors include species-specific life history characteristics, sm all- and large-scale hydrodynamics, substrate type (e.g., worm reefs, limestone, coral reefs) and topog raphy, water clarity, sand scouring and burial, wave energy, and fish and invertebrate grazing pressure (Lobban and Harrison, 1994).

This chapter addresses the distribu tion, function, and ecology of macroalgae (reds, greens, and browns) and cyanobacteria (blue-greens) found on NHB. Few pee r-reviewed studies are available on east Florida coast macroalgal assemblages. Data for this review ha ve largely been extracted from pre- or post-impact monitoring reports, personal communications, and pers onal observations made during research activities conducted within the study region ( Appendix A

, Table A.1 ). Macroalgae found in juvenile green turtle foraging studies are also listed, since these animals show high site-specificity and their foraging items are indicative of local macroalgal flora. Over 275 different species of macroalgae and cyanobacteria from 108 genera within 57 families were documented from all of the studies reviewed ( Appendix A

, Table A.2 ). Genera and number of species within genera are also documented by county ( Appendix A

, Table A.3 ) in an attempt to elicit some latitudinal perspe ctive for NHB macroalgal distribution patterns, if present. The algal divisions are ultimately organized into functional-form groups as proposed by Littler et al. (1983), which represent useful groupings of macroalgae based on morphological-metabolic-ecological interactions, and has been widely experimented and appli ed in the marine environment (Littler and Littler, 1980; Steneck and Watling, 1982; Littler et al., 1983).

3.1.1 Functional Form Groups

Functional form grouping as proposed by Littler et al. (1983) assigns species of macroalgae to a particular group based on internal and external characteristics and is applied in this document to describe observed distributional patterns of macroalgae on NHB ( Table 3.1 ). Cyanobacteria are treated separately in this document. The functional form al gal groups are primarily based on classifying algae by morphological and functional adaptations, and are divided into six main groups: 1) sheet (foliose), 2) filamentous, 3) coarsely-branched, 4) thick-leathery , 5) jointed-calcareous, and 6) crustose. The ranks (or groupings) are based on characteristics of ev olutionary strategies that are often similar across divisions. For example, the thick-leathery group co ntains species from red, green, and brown divisions that are morphologically similar and share metabolic and ecological properties that can be used to examine their patterns or functions within a community (Littler et al., 1983). The sheet group bauplan are characteristically one- to two-layered (mono- or distro matic) or thin-tubed, one to several cells thick, like species of Ulva and Dictyota . The filamentous group contains species such as Ceramium

, Spyridia , and Chaetomorpha , which are lightly branched, multiseriate, and lightly corticated. Macroalgal species such

as Acanthophora

, Laurencia

, Liagora

, Udotea, and Penicillus are placed within the coarsely-branched algal group, characterized as fleshy -wiry textured species with upright coarsely branched structures. Examples from the thick-leathery group are species of Gracil aria

, Sargassum

, Udotea, and Padina

, normally several cells in thickness, toughly br anched, and heavily corticated. Species in the jointed-calcareous group are typically ar ticulated, calcified, and stony (e.g., Amphiroa, Jania, and

Halimeda ). Genera in the crustose group are normally characterized as encrusting, prostrate, and stony (e.g., Hydrolithum and Porolithon ).Section 2 3-2 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 3.1. Macroalgal functional form group descriptions as proposed in Littler et al. (1983).

Functional Form Group External Morphology Internal Anatomy Texture Genera Examined

Sheet Thin, tubular, and sheet-like (foliose) Uncorticated, one to

several cells thick Soft Ulva, Enteromorpha ( Ulva ) , Dictyota

Filamentous Delicately branched (filamentous) Uniseriate, multiseriate, or lightly corticated Soft Centroceras, Caulerpa, Spyridia, Chaetomorpha, Ceramium

Coarsely-branched Coarsely branched, upright Corticated Fleshy-wiry Acanthophora, Laurencia, Rhipocephalus, Liagora, Udotea, Caulerpa, Penicillus, Neomeris

Thick-leathery Thick blades and

branches Differentiated, heavily corticated, thick-walled Leather, rubbery Sargassum, Lobophora, Gracilaria, Turbinaria, Padina, Stypopodium,

Udotea

Jointed-calcareous Articulated, calcareous, upright Calcified genicula, flexible intergenicula with parallel cell rows Stony Halimeda, Galaxaura, Jania, Amphiroa

Crustose Prostrate, encrusting Calcified or uncalcified parallel rows of cells Stony or tough Porolithon, Hydrolithon, Neogoniolithon, Peyssonnelia



### General differences in functional form group response s to environmental conditions (e.g., photosynthesis, sedimentation, grazing, etc.) are presented in Table 3.2 . Data for NHB macroalgae were extracted from

the sources listed in Appendix A, Table A.1 . Macroalgae are expressed as presence/absence data because different sampling methods were utilized among the studies.

Table 3.2. Effects of environmental conditions on th e various algal functional form groups based on Littler et al. (1983).

Functional Form Group Light Sedimentation Water Motion Nutrients Herbivory

Sheet (foliose) High net photosynthesis; Low self-shading Continuous spore

release aids in

success Destructive; Some turf-forming species High uptake Low resistance (exceptions [e.g., Dictyota ]); Delicate thalli but rapid growth

Filamentous High net photosynthesis Commonly turf; Vegetation fragmentation aids

in success Many turf-forming species High uptake Low resistance (exceptions [e.g., Caulerpa ]); Delicate thalli but rapid and sometimes conspicuous growth

Coarsely-branched Moderate net photosynthesis Commonly turf Turf forming species;

Reduced photosynthesis near

holdfast N/A Low to moderate resistance; Some secondary metabolic

chemical deterrents

Thick-leathery Moderate net photosynthesis Robust hold-fasts aid persistence Strengthens

holdfast/reduces height; Some turf-forming species N/A High resistance; Morphological deterrent

Jointed-calcareous Low net photosynthesis Commonly turf N/A Low nutrient uptake rates High resistance; Morphological deterrent

Crustose Low net photosynthesis Tolerant of short
burial; Anoxic

conditions created

under burial N/A Low nutrient uptake rates High resistance; Morphological deterrent

N/A = not available.Section 2 3-3 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 3.1.2 Latitudinal Gradients

There are several dramatic and some relatively subtle differences in macroalgal distribution along east Florida NHB that are most likely correlated to two major geographical features: 1) the diverging path of the Florida Current (or Gulf Stream), and 2) gradients in seawater temperatures from warm temperate to subtropical latitudes. The average distance of t he Gulf Stream from the nearshore waters of south Florida is approximately 24 km, while the average di stance in the northern NHB is approximately 48 km away at Port Canaveral ( Figure 3.1 ). Between Cape Canaveral and Palm Beach, Searles (1984)

documented the southernmost limit of se veral warm temperate species (e.g., Hypnea volubilis, Petroglossum undulatum, Gloioderma blomquistii ) and the northern limits of a number of subtropical species. Macroalgal biomass appears to be relatively higher in northern east Florida coast NHB counties than in the southern NHB counties. While the specific reasons for this have not been experimentally tested, the trend may be due to latitudinal differences in nutrients (possibly a func tion of the oligotrophic waters of the Florida Current), wave dynamics, and abundance and diversity of grazing fishes and invertebrates. The later explanation may be further supported by the relative ly higher percentage of physically- and chemically-defended macroalgae (i.e., thick-leathery, jointed-ca lcareous, and crustose forms) seen towards southeast Florida (see Chapter 7 ) and, possibly, a relatively higher abundance and diversity of herbivorous fish species seen towards mo re southern latitudes, as suggested by Floeter et al. (2004). Presence/absence data from NHB studies support some of these general observations (e.g., increase in defended species, especially crustose and jointed-calcareous); however, these data have not been adequately tested.

Figure 3.1. Path of the Florida Current (Gulf Stream). Note the increased distance of the Gulf Stream west wall along the east Florida coast from south to north (Image from: Naval Oceanographic Office website [unclassified document]).Section 2 3-4 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 3.1.3 Depth Gradients

The overall percent compositions of red (Rhodo phyta), green (Chlorophyta), and brown (Phaeophyta) macroalgal species documented in NHB studies ( Figure 3.2 ) appear to reflect the overall taxonomic abundance of species of the different divisions. Fo r example, red algae represent the largest taxonomic group of macroalgae, and red algae composed the highe st percent composition of total NHB macroalgae. Saffo (1987) and others have more recently questioned Engelmann’s theory (1883; see Saffo, 1987) on the depth distributions among green, brown, and r ed macroalgae. The more-than-century-old hypothesis that predicted chromatic adaptation phylogeny was responsible for the vertical distribution of macroalgae has been tested with more advanced technology. Biologists now recognize that factors other than photosynthetic pigments may affect the distribution of macroalgae, and that seaweeds photoacclimate to light quality as well as light intensity (Saffo, 1987; Dawes, 1998).

5.33%

24.85%

15.68% 54.14% Cyanobacteria

Chlorophyta

Phaeophyta

Rhodophyta



### Figure 3.2. Percent composition of macroalgae and cyanobacteria di visions documented from studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom (see Appendix A

, Table A.1 ).

Macroalgae from the functional form groups of filame ntous and thick-leathery represented about 50% of the macroalgae documented from studies conducted on east Florida NHB ( Figure 3.3 ). Functional form group representation, however, varied among counties ( Figure 3.4 ). Combinations of several different local microhabitat features (e.g., wave dynamics, substrate type, turbidity levels) are most likely responsible for macroalgal zonation patterns of di versity and abundance, as well as changes in form (turfing) on NHB. Turf-forming algae, defined here as macroalgae that form colonial assemblages instead of spatially segregated individuals, normally form in stressful environments, such as areas that experience periodic or frequent sedimentation, expos ure, and/or high grazing pressure (Airoldi, 2001). Conditions that induce algal “turfing” are common in low intertidal and shallow subtidal areas. The hardbottoms in these areas are usually well-vegetated with fast-growing and/or turf-forming macroalgae, especially on high-energy beaches. Some pattern s elicited among the functional form groups are 1) resilience among many species in the sheet and f ilamentous groups, and 2) resistant species in the thick-leathery group. Distributional patterns indica te the morphology and productivity strategies of articulated coralline and crustose functional form sp ecies enable them to either survive in stressful environments or select against settlement in these habitats.Section 2 3-5 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 9%

30%

24% 21% 9% 1% 6%

Sheet

Filamentous

Coarsely-Branched

Thick Leathery

Jointed Calcareous

Crustose

Unid. & Cyanobacteria



### Figure 3.3. Percent composition of macroalgae and cyanobacteria functional form groups documented from studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom (see Appendix A

, Table A.1 ).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Brevard Indian

River St. Lucie Martin Palm

Beach Broward Sheet

Filamentous

Coarsely Branched

Thick Leathery

Jointed Calcareous

Crustose

Unid



### Figure 3.4. Percent composition of macroalgal fu nctional form groups (by county) documented from studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom (see Appendix A

, Table A.1 ).

3.1.4 Algal Reproduction

3.1.4.1 Sexual Reproduction

Most macroalgae are capable of sex ual and asexual reproduction; however , the latter remains less costly. Sexual reproduction promotes variation at the cost of sporophyte and gametophyte production. Thus far, research on the reproductive strategies of certain macr oalgae indicates there are several variations within and between species, and generalizations should be cautioned (Lobban and Harrison, 1994). However, for descriptive purposes, a brief definition of the basic reproductive strategies is made here to apply their ecological significance to NHB macroalgae. The thre e basic life history strategies (from Moore et al., 1998) are as follows:Section 2 3-6 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### • sporic meiosis – diploid parents form spores by sporic meiosis; spores produce haploid parents, which produce gametes (i.e., Ulva lactuca

, U. flexuosa [formerly Enteromorpha ], Polysiphonia spp., Laurencia spp.).

• gametic meiosis – where diploid parents directly produce gametes by gametic meiosis, bypassing the haploid parent phase (i.e., Sargassum spp., Turbinaria spp.).

• zygotic meiosis – where haploid parents produce gametes, and gametes fuse into a zygote, which is the only diploid cell in this life cycle (i.e., Cladophora spp., Ulva spp.).

Heteromorphic or isomorphic haplodiplontic sporic meio sis is a common life histor y strategy of many NHB macroalgae. Some advantages of this life history (two free-living phases) are that there are different photosynthetic characteristics between gametophy tes and sporophytes. There are shade-adapted young sporophytes and gametophytes and sun- adapted (canopy) mature sporophytes (Littler and Littler, 1980 in Dawes, 1998). Other advantages of th is life history may include grazer-resistant diploid crustose phases under heavy herbivory levels that alternate with bladed haploid phases when under reduced herbivory pressure (Dawes, 1998).

The dispersal distances of algal propagules vary cons iderably with species (i.e., 3 m versus 500 m; see Reed et al., 1988) due to species life history in comb ination with episodic events (i.e., storm events). However, most macroalgae seeds generally settle within a relatively short range (~1 m) from their source (Deysher and Norton, 1982; Lobban and Harrison, 1994). Research to predict rates and distances of dispersal in benthic marine communities has been a recent focus in the marine ecology field. Carr et al. (2003) contends that marine systems are more “open” and dispersal is relatively wider than in terrestrial systems. However, Cowen et al. (2000) reviewed severa l studies that indicate small-scale circulations in marine systems tend to minimize long-distance di spersal, creating higher-than-expected retention of invertebrate larvae (Cowen et al., 2000) and macroalgal propagules (Santelices, 1990). Bobadilla and Santelices (2005) constructed a model of the predicted spatial distribution of macroalgal dispersal with expected high rates of settlement near the parent pl ant and progressively less settlement with increasing distance from the propagule source. However, models run with in-field propagule data did not conform to the expected results, with actual propagule disper sal rates being pulsed and highly variable. Source curves that were generated from their data indicat ed dispersal distance was grea ter from the source than predicted for many rocky intertidal species. Ultima tely, results from Cowen et al. (2000) and Bobadilla and Santelices (2005) support the idea that more accurate models need to be derived that include 1) localized currents and eddies and 2) pulsing events in the capacity of propagules to be imported and exported. Additionally, another important factor to cons ider is that dispersal distances and survival rates can be enhanced by consumers, where spores successf ully pass through the gut of gastropods or fishes and benefit from the sinking, sticki ng, and nutrient qualities of the fecal pellet (Santelices and Paya, 1989).

3.1.4.2 Asexual Reproduction

Several different strategies exist for clonal (ase xual) reproduction: 1) st oloniferous growth (e.g., Caulerpa spp. and Penicillus spp.), where the plant consists of a pr ostrate stolon and upright growth, 2) common holdfast growth (e.g., Corallina officinalis and Ascophyllum spp.), where a basal holdfast gives way to multiple upright tha lli, 3) crusts (e.g., Mesophyllum spp. and Ralfsia spp.), which grow out horizontally, 4) the bending and reattaching of plants to the substrate (e.g., Laurencia spp.), where the apical cell attaches to the surface and generates a new t hallus, and 5) fragmentation of parts (e.g., Halimeda spp., Dictyota spp., Gracilaria spp.) (Collado-Vides, 2002).

3.1.4.3 Life History Strategy (Perennial vs. Annual Algae)

There are a number of life history strategies of ma croalgae, but most can be categorized as either perennial (live for multiple years) or annual (live for 1 year). Perennial algae often represent the final stages of succession and are capable, in some case s, of living for up to 20 years (Lüning, 1990). Perennials exist in, and are dependent on, stable environmental conditions (or at least predictable fluctuating conditions). They are also resilient to low light and nutrient marine environments. PerennialSection 2 3-7 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### algae can be categorized as k -strategist species that optimally ut ilize environmental resources. Their annually fixed organic carbon stores are used to increa se thallus growth (e.g., large canopy species) in lieu of allocating resources toward reproductive structures. In contrast, the biomass of annual species ( r

strategy) is highly variable since they allocate much of their resources to generate reproductive cells on the thallus and reproduce quickly (Lüning, 1990). Macr oalgal species associated with the NHB in Florida appear to have greater numbers of annual species in in tertidal and shallow subtidal waters than in deeper (>31 m) waters off the Florida coast, where most of the documented macroalgal species are considered perennial (Hanisak and Blair, 1988).

3.1.5 Functional Form Group Descriptions

3.1.5.1 Sheet Group

Littler et al. (1983) described this group as having a soft, foliose, an d uncorticated external morphology with a general cell thickness that ranges from one to several cells. Representative genera from this group

are Ulva and Dictyota ( Figure 3.5 ). Predominantly fast-growing and found in shallow waters, species in this group typically have high net photosynthesis rate s, are short-lived, and are nitrogen-limited (Littler and Arnold, 1982).

Figure 3.5. Representative spec ies of the sheet functional form group growing on nearshore

hardbottom: Ulva lactuca (left) and Dictyota sp. (right). Photos by K. Holloway-Adkins



### .

Thirty-one different species based from studies co nducted on east Florida NHB were from the sheet functional form group: 8 green ( Ulva spp.), 22 brown ( Dictyopteris delicatula and Dictyota spp.), and 1 red macroalga ( Nitophyllum punctatum ). Macroalgae within this functional group were highly represented in Martin and Brevard Counties ( Figure 3.6 ). The number of sheet group species among NHB studies ranged from 0% (Salmon et al., 2004) in Broward County to 20% (Cummings, 1990) in Palm Beach County ( Appendix A

, Table A.4 ). The number of sheet group species was highest in foraging sample analyses of juvenile green turtles in Palm Beach County (27.3%) (Makowski, 2004) ( Appendix A

, Table A.4 ).

The sheet group is abundant throughout east Florida NHB and can be found in both intertidal and subtidal waters. Species of Ulva and Dictyota were the most frequently represented species from this group and were documented in all counties within the NHB area. Species like Ulva that are thin and transparent are less efficient in absorbing submarine illuminat ion than thick, multilayered plants like Codium , even though they share the same pigments (Dawes, 1998). Howeve r, light can be effectively trapped at depth through morphological adaptations and changes in pigment concentration.Section 2 3-8 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom Percentage of Sheet Group by County

13.16%

7.45% 8.33% 14.29%

7.79% 12.71%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00%

BREVARD INDIAN

RIVER ST. LUCIE MARTIN PALM BEACH BROWARD



### Figure 3.6. Percentage of species in the sheet func tional form group documented in studies conducted

on nearshore hardbottom in counties fr om Brevard to Broward, Florida (see Appendix A

, Table A.4 ).

Most of the green and brown algae within the sheet group display haplodiplontic sporic meiosis life history. Littler et al. (1983) found net productivity was high (second highest of groups) for macroalgae characterized within the sheet group. Species ar e likely to be opportunistic, with limited life history strategy flexibility (Littler and Littler, 1980); however , because most species from this group have long continuous spore release events (Eri ksson and Johansson, 2005), they ar e highly productive. Species from this group are commonly early successional species, short-lived, and very resilient to environment

disturbances.

Many of the sheet group species have bauplans with high surface-to-volume ratios, which promotes a higher uptake of nutrients and accelerates photosynthesis. The ubiquitous Ulva was described by Guimaraens and Coutinho (2000) as light-limited du ring winter and nutrient-limited during summer. However, upwelling events that occur in summer, coupled with the effects of high irradiance and excess nutrients, significantly stimulated algal growth of this species. The sheet group tends to be opportunistic ( r

strategy), settle, and grow quickly, and be euryt opic (tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions or habitats); however, this group is more prone to desiccation and grazer damage. Most of these forms are comparatively more susceptible to damage from sedimentary particle abrasion and the shearing action of high-energy waves. Species from this group (i.e., Ulva and Dictyota ) were frequently found in foraging analyses of juvenile gr een turtles and herbivorous fishes (see Chapter 7 ). However, experimental studies indicate that compounds inherent to Dictyota may deter many grazing invertebrates and fishes (Cronin et al., 1997).

3.1.5.2 Filamentous Group

The morphology of this group has been described as delicately branched and filamentous with internal anatomy characterized as uniseriate, multiseriate, or li ghtly corticated (Littler et al., 1983). Typical genera

include Centroceras

, Chaetomorpha, and Ceramium . This group represented the largest functional form group (31.0%) found on east Florida NHB and was docume nted from studies in every county examined.

Ninety-seven macroalgal species were identified as having filamentous functional form. This group included 24 green, 9 brown, and 64 red algae. Most of the same species were abundant and common along the entire east Florida NHB; however, they were most frequently documented in Indian River and Brevard Counties ( Figure 3.7 ). The number of filamentous group species for NHB studies ranged from 0% (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2005b) in Palm Beach County to 35.8% (Juett et al., 1976) in Indian River County ( Appendix A

, Table A.5 ). The highest composition of filamentous species found in foraging analysis of juvenile green turtles was 36.3% in Palm Beach County (Makowski, 2004) ( Appendix A

, Table A.5 ).Section 2 3-9 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Percentage of Filamentous Group by County

31.58% 32.92%

27.78% 30.61%

18.18% 19.49%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%

BREVARD INDIAN

RIVER ST. LUCIE MARTIN PALM

BEACH BROWARD



### Figure 3.7. Percentage of species in the filament ous functional form group documented in studies

conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counti es from Brevard to Broward, Florida (see Appendix A

, Table A.5 ).

Macroalgae from the filamentous form group were documented among most of the east Florida NHB

studies. Bryopsis

, Caulerpa, and Ceramium were reported in studies within all of the counties, and Cladophora was counted in all but Broward County ( Appendix A

, Table A.3 ). These species are present

and abundant in both intertidal and subtidal waters (K. Holloway-Adkins, East Coast Biologists, Inc., [ECB], personal observation) and exhibit few inhibitions to growth or distribution. Many species within this group are frequently found in the diet of herbivorous invertebrates, fishes, and juvenile green turtles.

Net productivity was experimentally highest for macr oalgae within the filamentous functional form group (Littler et al., 1983). Most macroalgae in this group exhibit high tolerance for changes in sedimentation and will commonly turf to persist in stressful enviro nmental conditions. Dense turfs of filamentous algae are common in lower shallow intertidal waters, and this morphological adaptation helps these species persist and grow under intense grazing pressure and/or high-energy beach conditions (Airoldi, 2001). A few species can grow epiphytically on other macr oalgae; however, most form a somewhat distinct holdfast or stolon and require hard substratum for attachment and growth. Most of the species within this group lack defense metabolites and are frequently cons umed by many herbivorous fishes, invertebrates, and juvenile green turtles (see Chapter 7 ).

Green and brown filamentous group macroalgae exhibit haplodiplontic sporic meiosis life history strategies. The majority of species in this group elicit r -strategy characteristics and are highly resilient but short-lived species. Reproductive strategies of red algae within this group are known to have long continuous spore releases events (E riksson and Johansson, 2005). Additionally, species from this group are commonly early successional species, highly ephemeral, and characteristically resilient.

3.1.5.3 Coarsely-branched Group

The morphology of this group has been described by Li ttler et al. (1983) as coarsely-branched, upright, and corticated. Typical genera include species of Acanthophora

, Laurencia, Liagora, Udotea, Caulerpa

, and Penicillus; Laurencia and Caulerpa are pictured in Figure 3.8

.Section 2 3-10 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Figure 3.8. Representative species of the coar sely-branched functional form group growing on

nearshore hardbottom: Laurencia sp. (left image, top left and right) and Caulerpa sp. (cover in right image). Photo by K. Holloway-Adkins



### .

There were 83 macroalgal species within the coarsely-branched functional form group documented from east Florida NHB studies. The group itself is dominated by species of red and green macroalgae (see Littler et al., 1983). Fifty-seven species of red, 26 species of green, and no species of brown macroalgae were documented in NHB studies for this functional form group.

The percent of macroalgae from this gr oup was highest in Brevard County (39%; Figure 3.9 ). The number of coarsely-branched species per NHB study ranged from 16.7% composition in Broward County (Salmon et al., 2004) to 66.7% in Palm Beach Co unty (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2005b) ( Appendix A

, Table A.6 ). The percent composition of macroalga e from the coarsely-branched functional group was highest in the foraging samples of juv enile green turtles in Br oward County (Wershoven and Wershoven, 1992a) at 40.0% ( Appendix A

, Table A.6 ).

Percentage of Coarsely-Branched Group by County

39.47%

22.98% 29.86%

22.45% 32.47%

26.27%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%

BREVARD INDIAN

RIVER ST. LUCIE MARTIN PALM

BEACH BROWARD



### Figure 3.9. Percentage of species in the coarsely-branched functional form group documented in

studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Broward, Florida (see Appendix A

, Table A.6 ).

This group contains species that extend to the edge of the range and therefore exhibit traits from the two adjacent groups, i.e., on one end some genera like Udotea have low net productivity and tough external morphology, but others share other ch aracteristics with the coarsely-branched group (Littler et al., 1983).Section 2 3-11 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Acanthophora spicifera exhibits seasonal patterns of growth and mortality on east Florida NHB (K. Holloway-Adkins, ECB, pers. obse rv.); however, in tropical Panama it was considered perennial (Kilar and MacLachlan, 1989). Some species within this group have dormant or reduced stages where the plant dies back to the holdfast and regenerates unde r more favorable (i.e., photoperiod, temperature, salinity level, etc.) condition s (Brawley and Johnson, 1992).

3.1.5.4 Thick-leathery Group

The morphology of this group is described as having thick blades and branches, with internal anatomy being differentiated, heavily corticated, and thic k-walled (Littler et al., 1983). Species include Sargassum, Lobophora, Gracilaria, Turbinaria, Padina, Stypopodium, and Udotea.

A total of 71 different species was documented from east Florida NHB studies (38 red, 21 brown, and 12 green macroalgae). Species within this group were widely distributed across the NHB in every county and were from all three macroalgal divisions. Gracilaria and Padina occur frequently throughout east Florida NHB, while Sargassum

, Lobophora

, Turbinaria , and Udotea are more frequently found in the central and southern east Florida NHB. Representative species from the thick-leathery functional form group are shown in Figure 3.10

.

Figure 3.10. Several representative species of the thick-leathery functional form group, including Agardhiella subulata and Gracilaria sp., growing on nearshore hardbottom. Photo by

K. Holloway-Adkins



### .

Distribution – Latitude and Water Depth

The percent of macroalgae from this group was highly represented in Broward and Martin Counties ( Figure 3.11 ). Percent composition found in studies conducted along east Florida NHB showed a low percentage (8%) in Palm Beach County (Contin ental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2005b) and a high percentage (50%) in Broward County (Salmon et al., 2004) ( Appendix A

, Table A.7 ). Species from the thick-leathery group were highest (30.0%) in foraging samples that were analyzed from juvenile green turtles in Broward County (Wer shoven and Wershoven, 1992b) ( Appendix A

, Table A.7 ).Section 2 3-12 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Percentage of Thick-Leathery Group by County

13.16% 19.88% 23.61% 24.49%

16.88% 24.58%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%

BREVARD INDIAN

RIVER ST. LUCIE MARTIN PALM BEACH BROWARD



### Figure 3.11. Percentage of species in the thick-l eathery functional form group documented in studies

conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counti es from Brevard to Broward, Florida (see Appendix A

, Table A.7 ).

Robust holdfast structures may promote persistence under short-term burial events. This group’s reproductive strategy appears to be not as tole rant of sedimentation (Eriksson and Johansson, 2005); however, their association with tu rf (understory) species may promot e their persistence in stressful environments (Johnson and Brawley, 1998). The majority of species within this group produce secondary metabolites and persist as perennial k -strategy plants.

3.1.5.5 Jointed-calcareous Group

External morphology of this group is described as being articulated, calcareous, and upright (Littler et al., 1983). Internal anatomy is calcified genicula and flexib le intergenicula with parallel cell rows. Species

include Halimeda

, Galaxaura

, Jania , and Amphiroa . Red coralline species (O rder Corallinales) are less frequently encountered in the northern reach of the east Florida NHB but are represented by Amphiroa sp. and Jania spp. throughout the entire east Florida NHB.

There were 32 different species (19 rhodophytes and 13 chlorophytes) from the jointed-calcareous functional form group documented from east Florida NHB studies. Jointed-calcareous functional form group species were represented in every county within the NHB.

Broward County had the highest percent of macroalgae from this group ( Figure 3.12 ). Percent composition found in studies conducted along east Flor ida NHB were highest (21.7%) in the Vare study (1991) in Palm Beach County ( Appendix A

, Table A.8 ). The highest percent composition of jointed-calcareous species found in foraging sample s of juvenile green turtles was 10%, in Broward County (Wershoven and Wershoven, 1992b) ( Appendix A

, Table A.8 ).Section 2 3-13 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Percentage of Jointed-Calcareous Group by County

2.63% 5.59% 6.94%

4.08% 14.29% 16.10%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00%

BREVARD INDIAN

RIVER ST. LUCIE MARTIN PALM

BEACH BROWARD



### Figure 3.12. Percentage of species in the jointed-calcareous functional form group documented in

studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom in counties from Brevard to Broward, Florida (see Appendix A

, Table A.8 ).

Calcareous species are important c ontributors to sediment production (as well as species from the crustose group). They exhibit more k -strategy life histories, transfer ring energy towards structural development (e.g., calcareous external morphology) and therefore growing much slower than filamentous and sheet group species. Net productivity of this group and the crustose group are lowest among the functional form groups (Littler et al., 1983). The propagules of articulated coralline species are considered poor dispersers (Dethier et al., 2003), an d macroalgal dispersal generally serves to primarily replenish local productivity.

Parrotfish (Scaridae) readily consume calcareous algae (e.g., Halimeda spp., Avrainvillea spp., Penicillium spp.). However, it appears that other herbivor ous fish species and most invertebrates avoid calcareous green and red algal species.

3.1.5.6 Crustose Group

Morphology for this group is typically epilithic, prostr ate, or encrusting. The internal morphology has been described as calcified or uncalcified parallel rows of cells (Littler et al., 1983). From this group, only species of Rhodophyta were found on east Florida NHB.

The crustose macroalgal group was represented in only two counties, so a multi-county figure similar to Figures 3.6 through 3.12 is not presented. Lithophyllum sp. and Peyssonnelia rubra were the only two species documented on east Florida NHB. Lithophyllum sp. was documented in a study in Broward County (USACE, 2003a), and Peyssonnelia rubra was documented by Juett et al. (1976) in Indian River County.

Studies conducted showed a high percentage (18.5%) for crustose-g roup in Broward County (USACE, 2003a) and a low percentage (1.8%) in Indian River County (Juett et al., 1976) ( Appendix A

, Table A.9 ). Foraging analysis of juvenile green turtles did not in clude any species in the crustose functional form

group.

Species within this group show low net productivity; however, they are highly resistant to mechanical damage by sedimentation events and grazers, are considered perennial species, and can reproduce bothSection 2 3-14 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### asexually and sexually. Species in this group can grow in deep intertidal and shallow subtidal areas of the reef (as suggested by van den Ho ek et al., 1975 in Dawes, 1998).

3.1.5.7 Cyanobacteria

Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic, oxygen-producing bac teria that were formerly known as blue-green algae. They play a major role in nitrogen fi xation and are primary producers in most marine environments. Some occur at macroscopic sizes (i.e., Lyngbya ), but most are microscopic. The paramount importance of cyanobacteria in shaping the supporting marine food webs is sometimes underestimated (Paerl, 2000). In some cases, cyanobacteria have been reported to produce up to 20% of ocean primary production (Moore et al., 1998), wh ile others report it to account for anywhere from 30% to over 50% of the global oceanic primary pr oduction (Paerl, 2000). Their ubiquitous presence, eurythermal nature, and, sometimes, dual life-histor y strategy (auto- and heterotrophic) have made them difficult to classify, as well as characterize. Most likely several hundred different species are associated

with NHB on Florida’s east coast.

The two basic morphological classifications for mari ne planktonic cyanobacteria are 1) unicellular, and 2) filamentous. Filamentous forms are further subdivided into heterocystous and non-heterocystous forms (Paerl, 2000). Examples of heterocystous filamentous cyanobacteria documented from NHB

studies were Anabaena and Nodularia . Non-heterocystous blue-green algae found included genera of Lyngbya and Oscillatoria

.

Except for the more epiphytic colonial, filamentous cy anobacteria, most species are microscopic in size. Cyanobacteria can be relatively difficult to identify in situ and are predominantly inconspicuous in most cases. The paucity of data on species found on NH B from reviewed studies is most likely due to blue-green algae being overlooked and/or undocumented. Ongoing research by the Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce, Florida and Nova Southeast University in Ft. Lauderdale is exploring the cyanobacteria interactions with other sessile organi sms along the Florida coast. For example, their research suggests that cyanobacteria blooms appear to be more frequent along the Florida coast in recent years and may prohibit coral recruitment (Kuffner et al., 2006; Paul et al., 2007). Species of cyanobacteria were recorded for Indian River (Juett et al., 1976), Martin (Phillips, 1961), and Palm Beach (Vare, 1991) Counties, and from foraging samples of juvenile green turtles in Palm Beach County (Jones et al., 2004) ( Appendix A

, Table A.1 ). High-density Lyngbya blooms were documented on Gulf Stream reef (Boynton Beach OHB) from 2002 to 2004 and ag ain in fall 2008 by Palm Beach County Reef
Rescue. Also, Lyngbya blooms occurred on Broward County NHB and OHB from 2002 through 2004, where they smothered benthic species, particularly oc tocorals (Paul et al., 2007; Banks et al., 2008). In addition, NHB in Broward County south of Port Everglades was dominated by cyanobacteria during the summer of 2001 (Miller and Cuba, 2003; USACE, 2003a).

Seventeen species from 11 genera and eight different families were documented from east Florida NHB studies ( Appendix A

, Table A.2 ). The most frequently documented species were Calothrix

, Lyngbya

, Microcoleus , and Schizothrix . Other species observed were Anabaena

, Anacystis

, Entophysalis

, Hormothamnion

, Nodularia

, Oscillatoria , and Porph yrosiphon.

There is very little information available on how dive rsity of cyanobacteria changes along the NHBs of the east Florida coast. However, it can be fairly easily observed in both intertidal and subtidal hardbottoms, particularly during the late summer time period. Peaks in abundance of an unknown filamentous cyanobacteria species on dead intertidal worm reefs during late summer have been consistently observed (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville Un iversity, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.) . Subtidally, it also appears that filamentous cyanobacteria (likely Lyngbya sp.) may bloom during the summer time period. Peaks in abundance may be enhanced during this time period when late summer upwelling events provide excess nutrients to these shallow waters (McCarthy, 2005).

Cyanobacteria reproduce asexually and possibly via par asexual processes. Asex ually, filamentous forms reproduce by trichome fragmentation, or by form ation of special hormogonia (distinct reproductive segments of the trichomes). Hormogonia display gliding motions and gradually develop into newSection 2 3-15 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### trichomes (World Health Organization, 1999). They al so contain akinetes, whic h are modified vegetative cells that can remain dormant for long periods of ti me until environmental conditions are favorable to the germination of the new filaments. While there is no evidence of sexual reproduction, cyanobacteria may reproduce parasexually via transformation and conjugation (like bacteria).

3.2 SUMMARY

NHB areas off Florida’s east coast provide critical substrate for the settlement, growth, and production of macroalgae and filamentous cyanobacteria. Some import ant functions of macroalgal communities are to 1) provide oxygen through respirat ion processes, 2) aid in nutrient cycling, and 3) provide food and shelter for numerous species of herbivorous fishes , invertebrates, and juvenile green turtles. For example, the chemical content and architecture of Laurencia sp. function as important cues for spiny lobster postlarval settlement and subsequent juvenile shel ter selection. Both use the architecture of, and the food present on, Laurencia in selecting habitat (Herrnkind and Butler, 1986). Other macroalgal species such as the ubiquitous calcareous Halimeda also contribute three-dimensional structure for many species while alive, as well as calcium carbonate sa nds after they die and decompose. In particular, in the Florida Keys the contribution of Halimeda is widely evident where t he process of deposition and sedimentation enrich local substrata, promoting t he growth and productivity of other macroalgal and invertebrate species (Wiman and McKendree, 1975).

There have been several noted invasive magroalga l species encountered along Florida’s NHB. Generally, Williams and Smith (2007) report that ther e currently are 277 species of macroalgae that have been introduced at the global scale due to human ac tivities. Those with opportunistic life history characteristics make them more likely to bec ome invasive species under certain conditions (i.e., siphonous greens like Caulerpa spp.) and consequently warrant a higher level of monitoring (Williams and Smith, 2007). Generally, most macr oalgae are nitrogen-limited, and when land-based runoff creates high nutrient levels, macroalgal prolifer ation can increase. Under these conditions, some non-native as well as native species can become invasi ve monocultures that smother corals and other invertebrates, limiting availability light and creating an oxic conditions. LaPointe et al. (2005) investigated N sources predominantly responsible for an invasive species outbreak ( Caulerpa brachypus ) and the exponential production of a native species ( Codium isthmocladum ) that became harmful algal blooms in Palm Beach and Broward County. Through “signature” analysis of nitrogen, they determined the greatest

source of available and assimilable nitro gen was from land-based sewerage systems.

Macroalgae can be classified according to morphologica l and functional adaptations and are divided into six main groups: 1) sheet (foliose), 2) filam entous, 3) coarsely-branc hed), 4) thick-leathery, 5) jointed-calcareous, and 6) crustose.

While no one particular alga would completely align with the definition of keystone species, there are a handful of species within the macroalgal commu nity that are both abundant on NHB and play an important role among the grazers. Ten genera ( Caulerpa, Ceramium, Codium, Dictyota, Gelidium, Graciliaria, Laurencia, Padina, Ulva, Bryopsis ) recurred in NHB studies for all six counties examined.

Ceramium

, Ulva

, Dictyota

, Hypnea

, Laurencia

, Gelidium

, Caulerpa , and Jania were found in the foraging samples of herbivores, and were documented in studies in at lea st five of the six counties. Some general patterns observed for macroalgae in different NHB regions (counties) were 1) no calcareous green (including Halimeda ) species were found in Brevard County, 2) fewer Caulerpa species were present north of Sebastian Inlet (Brevard County) when co mpared to NHB in counties south of this area, 3) a higher number of red algal species in northern NHB counties (Indian River and Brevard), and 4) relatively few species of brown algae in northern NHB.

While there are not a great deal of comparable macroalgal data from along the east Florida coast, biomass appears to be relatively higher in the north ern east Florida coast NHB counties than in the southern ones. While the specific reasons for th is have not been experimentally tested, the trend may be due to latitudinal differences in nutrients (possibly a f unction of oligotrophic waters of the Florida Current), wave dynamics, and abundance and diversity of grazi ng fishes and invertebrates. Finally, cyanobacteria can be commonly encountered along the east Florida NHB , although there is not much known about howSection 2 3-16 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### diversity changes with depth and latitude. Ongoing resear ch at two major institutions on the east Florida coast is exploring community interactions involvi ng cyanobacteria and sessile organisms in subtropical
ecosystems.

Macroalgae from the filamentous and thick-leathery func tional form groups represented more than 50% of the macroalgae documented from studies conducted on east-Florida NHB. Ninety-seven macroalgal species were identified as having filamentous functio nal forms. This group included 24 green, 9 brown, and 64 red algae. Commonly encountered thick-leat hery group (thick blades and branches with differentiated internal anatomy heavily cortic ated, and thick body walls) species included Sargassum, Lobophora, Gracilaria, Turbinaria, Padina, Stypopodium, and Udotea . In contrast, there were 31 species from the sheet functional form group that included 8 green ( Ulva sp.), 22 brown ( Dictyopteris delicatula

and Dictyota sp.), and 1 red ( Nitophyllum puncatum ) macroalgal species. There were 75 macroalgal species within the coarsely-branched group, which was dominated by red and green algae with typical genera of Acanthophora, Laurencia, Li agora, Udotea, Caulerpa , and Penicillus . Common species from the jointed-calcareous group (articul ated, calcareous, and upright) include Halimeda, Galaxaura, Jania,

and Amphiroa . Within this group, macroalgae on the har dbottom in Brevard/Indian River Counties

showed no Halimeda north of Sebastian Inlet, relatively few Caulerpa species, and no calcareous greens when compared to NHB in counties south of this area. Finally, crustose group members such as Peyssonnelia could be encountered but are not well-documented in Florida NHB.

Generally, there appears to be greater numbers of annual species in intertidal and shallow subtidal waters along the east Florida coast than in deeper (>31 m) waters off the Florida coast, where most of the documented macroalgal species are considered perenni al. Some patterns elicited among the functional form groups encountered along the east Florida coast ar e 1) resilience among many species in the sheet and filamentous groups, and 2) resistant species in th e thick-leathery group. In the shallower, harsher NHB, most macroalgae in the filamentous functio nal group exhibit high tolerance for changes in sedimentation and will commonly turf to persist in st ressful environmental conditions. Dense turfs of filamentous algae are common in lower shallow intertidal waters, and this morphological adaptation helps these species persist and grow under intense grazin g pressure and/or high-energy beach conditions. In contrast, the sheet group tends to be opportunistic ( r strategy), settle, and grow quickly, be eurytopic in nature, and incur high levels of physical damag e from grazing and sedimentation activities.

Regardless of general life history strategy, most macroalgae along the east Florida NHB are capable of sexual and asexual reproduction; however, the latter remains less costly. The degree of dispersal of fragments or reproductive propagules from parent sour ces is unknown for species along the coast but is likely to be highly variable. Recent research suggests dispersal distances may be greater from the source than predicted for many rocky intertidal spec ies. Finally, there is essentially no information available on seasonal recruitment patterns for any algal species along the east Florida coast.Section 2 4-1 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

# C h a p t e r 4

I n v e r t e b r a t e s

4.1 INTRODUCTION

There is a high diversity and abundance of sessile an d motile invertebrate species associated with NHBs along the east Florida coast (see Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). A total of 533 species of invertebrates has been identified from NHB along the east Florida coast. On a large scale, the diversity and abundance at any particular location varies dramatically based on latitude, depth, and, often, season. Variability in these community and population measures within a sp ecific area can be high because of changes in features of the substrate itself, local hydrodynamics , and other biotic and abiotic factors. Often, the highest community biomasses occur in hardbottom areas with higher abundances of sessile invertebrate species (some may be considered foundational or keystone contributors to the community) that enhance local shelter. Higher biomasses of macroalgae that occur in the more northern hardbottoms along the east Florida coast likely serve the same purpose. In some cases, these hardbottom-enhancing species may also significantly contribute to local food webs (i.e., Phragmatopoma lapidosa ). Therefore, changes in the abundance of these foundational species, whether natural or anthropogenic, will likely have profound effects on local invertebrate and vertebrate diversity and abundance.

The approach of this chapter is to give an overview of the sessile and motile invertebrate communities associated with east Florida NHBs. Invertebrate community changes with latitude, depth, and season will be discussed, where possible, based on available dat a and personal research experiences. The chapter will additionally discuss the ecological function and lif e history and reproductive characteristics of each taxonomic group in the context of how they may a ffect distribution and abundance in the study region.

4.2 SESSILE SPECIES

4.2.1 Polychaetes

4.2.1.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Diversity and abundance of polychaetes along NHBs from the east Florida coast is high ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ) with 87 worm species being found along the coast. Nelson (1989) and Coastal Science Associates, Inc. (2000) observed 49 and 53 polychaete species, respectively, on hardbottoms in Indian River County, while Rudolph (1977) identified 85 species from Palm Beach County hardbottoms.

Little is known about the ecological function of most polychaete species along the east Florida coast, but they are probably very important in local food webs as both consumers and prey. Most polychaetes are suspension feeders, although some are deposit feeders and carnivores. They are most likely very important food sources for various fish and invertebra te species, although no research has addressed this in the study region.

Most available research on polychaetes has focused on various aspects of the reef-building polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa , also known as P. caudata (Kirtley, 1994) and/or P. l. lapidosa (Pawlik, 1988). This species is clearly a keystone contributor to t he biological diversity of hardbottoms along the Florida coast. The relief provided by these "worm reefs" supports a higher diversity and abundance of marine species than that of neighboring sand or hardbottom habitats ( Figure 4.1 ). In particular, worm reefs are considered important sources of food and shelter for juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) (Wershoven and Wershoven, 1989; Ehrhart et al., 1996; Holloway-Adki ns, 2001). Prior studies have also identified that the reefs provide shelter for over 423 invert ebrate species (Gore et al., 1978; Nelson, 1988, 1989; Nelson and Demetriades, 1992) and over 200 fish species (Gilmore, 1977; Gilmore et al., 1981; Lindeman, 1997a; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). The importance of worm reefs in providing food and shelter for juvenile and adult fishes of commercial va lue resulted in their designation as EFH/HAPC by theSection 2 4-2 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### NMFS. In addition, worm reefs are important for the maintenance, propagation, and persistence of beaches and barrier islands by primarily retaining sediments (Kirtley, 1966, 1967; Multer and Milliman, 1967; Gram, 1968; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Mehta, 1973; Kirtley, 1974).

While P. lapidosa is important in enhancing shelter in hardbottoms, they may also be important within food webs along the east Florida coast ( Figure 4.2 ). It is apparent that various decapods (Gore et al., 1978) and gastropods (Watanabe, 2002; Watanabe and Young, 2006) will prey on P. lapidosa . It is likely, though not confirmed, that some fish species such as parrotfish may feed on them as well. Further, the rock-boring urchin Echinometra lucunter clearly bores into worm reef and limestone, causing worm mortality along hardbottoms in St. Lucie County (D. McCarthy,

Jacksonville Un iversity, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.). However, these biotic forms of mortality probably do not affect P. lapidosa abundance and distribution at the same level that seasonal natural disturbances such as high wave ener gy and sand scouring/burial (McCarthy, 2001).

Figure 4.2. The trophic subweb po stulated for the six most abundant species of decapod crustaceans on

central Florida sabellariid worm reefs. T he numbers on the lines indicate the percent of observed prey material noted in the gut contents from all combined individuals of a species. Trophic lines without numbers, or with questi on marks, are interpolated from our field

observations or from records in the literature. Dashed lines indicate production from Phragmatopoma lapidosa (From: Gore et al., 1978). Figure 4.1. Intertidal worm rock at Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin County, Florida. Photo by D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-3 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.2.1.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

There is no information currently available on how diversity and abundance of most polychaetes change with latitude and depth along east Florida coast NHBs. Inconsistent sampling methods for the few available studies make comparisons invalid. While Rudolph (1977) found nearly twice as many polychaetes as Nelson (1989), the later author suggests that increased sampling in Indian River County is likely to reveal more species

than the 49 encountered in his study. Further, both of these studies focused only on species encountered within a depth of 2 to 4 m. There are no known comparative ecological studies of polychaete assemblages with increasing depth along the coast.

The best available research for the east Florida coast has

been conducted on Phragmatopoma lapidosa (Family Sabellariidae) ( Figure 4.3 ). P. lapidosa grasps sediment grains from the water column by its oral tentacles, coats them with a proteinaceous cement, and then implants t hem into tubes with their opercular paleae (Kirtley, 1966). Numerous individuals make tubes that then fo rm vast hardbottom reefs in intertidal and shallow (generally highest abundances occur in <4 m) subtidal waters from Cape Canaveral to Key Biscayne in Florida (about 650 km) and further south to Santa Catarina, Brazil (Kirtley, 1994) ( Figures 4.4 and 4.5 ). Within Florida, there appears to be higher abundances of this species towards the northern half of the east Florida hardbottom area (USFWS, 1999), with peak abundance possibly occurring within the Stuart to Vero Beach area. This may be because this r egion has the optimal range of sediment sizes, hydrodynamics, and sea water temperature. For exam ple, juvenile worms most often use small, dark grains of heavy minerals, while adults tend to use larger, light-colored sand grains (Kirtley, 1966; Eckelbarger, 1976). In Stuart, McCarthy (2008) has ob served the percentage of total intertidal worm reef occupying the hardbottom at Bathtub Reef to va ry between <10% and >45% during his 6-year study ( Figure 4.6 ). Northern limits of P. lapidosa may be controlled by the cooler sea water temperatures that occur towards Cape Canaveral. Eckelbarger (1976 ) observed significantly higher mortality (LD 50 

### ) of P. lapidosa at temperatures below 15.5oC and above 29.5oC. Temperatures to the north of St. Lucie County can be as low as 7oC (Smith, 1981). To the south, McCarthy et al. (2008) suggests that P. lapidosa may have lower abundance in south Florida and throughout most of the Caribbean because of lack of availability of small sediment sizes for new recruits to build tubes. Figure 4.3. Close up of the anterior end of the reef-building polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ).

Photo by D. McCarthy



### .

Figure 4.4. Close up of the anterior tube of an

individual Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ). Photo by D. McCarthy



### . Figure 4.5. Honeycomb structure created by

thousands of Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ). Photo by

D. McCarth y



### .Section 2 4-4 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Month and Year J J ASOND J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J ASOND% Cover

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Live adults

Juveniles Destroyed worms

Vacant mound N = 10

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



### Figure 4.6. Monthly mean percentage cover of liv e adults, juveniles, destroyed worms, and vacant

mounds for Phragmatopoma lapidosa on Bathtub Reef, Stuart, Martin County, Florida (McCarthy, 2008).

4.2.1.3 Reproduction and Life History

There is a wide range of reproductive and life hist ory strategies for the polychaetes that have been identified along the east Florida coast. Most polychaete s become reproductive within a year of settlement and probably do not live more than 3 years (Giangrande, 1997). They are primarily known to reproduce sexually and have external fertilizat ion; however, there is little know n about seasonal spawning patterns of polychaetes in the study region. Among polyc haetes in general, some spawn throughout the year, while others are seasonal reproducers. Regardless , most produce trochophore larvae that live in the plankton from weeks to months, depending on the spec ies (Pernet et al., 2002). Consequently, larval dispersal varies based on species (Giangrande, 1997). Very little is known about seasonal recruitment patterns for most polychaetes along the east Florida coast.

Like many polychaetes, P. lapidosa are dioecious worms that externally spawn gametes into the water,

where fertilization results in larvae that drift in the plankton for 2 to 20 weeks (Eckelbarger, 1976; Pawlik and Mense, 1994). Laboratory studies (Pawlik et al., 1991; McCarthy et al., 2002) suggest that competent larvae position themselves deep in the wate r column and consequently may be more likely to be transported inshore during seaward-directed winds that result in near-bottom return flow. This larval behavior may also serve to limit dispersal among P. lapidosa populations within its rather large range. A molecular study by Drake et al. (2007) suggested that P. lapidosa sampled in Florida (Miami) and those sampled in the Caribbean (Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands) may be two distinct populations. Combined, these data support that P. lapidosa may have limited dispersal along the Florida coast. Future research is needed to establish whether there are important Flor ida populations that provide larvae to other Florida populations.

It has been well documented that P. lapidosa require hard substrates fo r settlement and will repeatedly “test” substrates before settling on the preferred one (Eckelbarger, 1976; Pawlik, 1988). Behavioral preferences for moderate amounts of current hav e been quantified in laboratory studies with P. californica (Pawlik et al., 1991; Pawlik and Butman, 1993) . Further, it is well known that P. lapidosa often settle and metamorphose in response to contact with the tubes of adult worms (Eckelbarger, 1976; Krueger, 1976). Chromatographic analysis of the organic cont ent of the tubes of the closely related Phragmatopoma

californica revealed that a mixture of free fatty acids was responsible for inducing settlement (Pawlik, 1986). Additionally, laboratory and field experiment s by Jensen and Morse (1990) indicated that

P. californica larvae also respond to butylated hydroxyt oluene (BHT), which they suggest mimics theSection 2 4-5 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### activity of an unidentified, cross-linked dihydroxyphenylalanine residue used to construct the tubes. Laboratory larval settlement responses of P. californica have been found to be identical to those of P. lapidosa (Pawlik, 1988).

Recruitment occurs throughout most of the year for P. lapidosa but peaks during fall and winter (McCarthy, 2001). Among five intertidal locations along the Florida coast (Satellite Beach, Stuart, Coral Cove, Palm Beach, Boynton Beach), it appears that P. lapidosa recruit at the highest levels in Stuart, followed by Satellite Beach. McCarthy (2001) sugge sted that subtidal recruitment may be highest during seasons with increased wave activity. Overall, wo rm reefs appear to go through predictable patterns of annual change (McCarthy, 2001). These changes include high recruitment in early autumn through winter, rapid reef growth (approximately 0.5 cm/ day) resulting in maximum structure in spring and summer ( Figures 4.7 and 4.8 ), and decay by early autumn ( Figure 4.9 ). McCarthy (2001) noted that sublethal disturbance may cue spawning from mid-winter through early fall. Based on the annual cycle of reef growth and decline, it seems that physical pr ocesses rather than predator/prey relationships within the food web are more likely to limit the abundance and diversity of flora and fauna on worm reefs (Applied Biology, Inc., 1979; McCarthy, 2001). When these data are integrated with those of Lindeman (1997a), they reveal important links between t he seasonal cycle of sabellariid reef expansion and degradation, and the occupation of those r eefs by juvenile and adult organisms.

Figure 4.7. Phragmatopoma lapidosa ( caudata ) recruits recovered after 5 weeks deployment in intertidal hardbottom off Boynton Beach, Florida. Recruitment plates were 9 cm by 9 cm. Photo by

D. McCarthy



### .

Figure 4.8. High worm reef cover and wave acti vity at groynes at Palm Beach, Florida. Photo by

D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-6 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Figure 4.9. Seasonal reproductive and life history trends of Phragmatopoma lapidosa in the Boynton Beach area as illustrated by McCarthy (2001).

McCarthy (2001) studied the recruitment of sessile or ganisms in the intertidal and subtidal (3 to 4 m) zones at Boynton Beach, Florida from June 1997 to January 2000. He reported 23 sessile species recruiting to his settlement plates, with P. lapidosa being most commonly encountered ( Table 4.1 ). The recruitment rate of some 7 to 11 species m -2 

### d -1 

### occurred in both zones and was highest in summer and early fall. Although recruitment generally occurred at both depth zones, it was higher in the subtidal zone compared to the intertidal zone. McCarthy (2001) suggested that while high numbers of species may recruit into these habitats, most probably do not survive to adulthood, possibly due to a combination of factors. First, there was likely high mortality of recruits that could not tolerate frequently-occurring physical factors such as sand scouring and smothering. Second, high rates of P. lapidosa recruitment were observed to limit growth of sessile organisms, often growing over them. Finally, he also suggested that predation may not be as important in explaining recruit mortality in these two zones as the two previously-mentioned reasons.

4.2.2 Anthozoans

4.2.2.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Anthozoans are fairly abundant and diverse (54 species identified) along all NHBs from the east Florida coast ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). Most species provide shelter for various organisms via their external features. A number of invertebrates and fishes take refuge in the shelter created by corals. Consequently, when abundant, they are very important s helter-enhancing invertebrates that contribute to increased local biodiversity. For example, in the Florida Keys, 517 fish and 2,059 invertebrate species have been identified in coral reef habitats (Causey et al., 2002). Further, anthozoans such as gorgonians

and some hard corals can serve as food sources for reef residents such as ga stropods, bristle worms, and parrotfish (Birkland, 1974; Kinzie, 1974; Bi rkland and Gregory, 1975; Preston and Preston, 1975; Harvell and Suchanek, 1983; Lasker, 1985; Rotjan and Lewis, 2005) but are not likely to be very important on a large scale (O’Neal and Pawlik, 2002).Section 2 4-7 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow HardbottomTable 4.1. Species recruitment into intertidal (I) and subtidal (S) habitats from June 1997 through January 2000 in Boynton Beach, Florida. Lightblue areas indicate simultaneous settlement into intertidal and subtidal habitats. Pink shading indicates habitat lost to sandcover(From: McCarthy, 2001).1997199819992000SpeciesJunJulAugSepNovJanFebAprJunJulSepOctJanMarMayJunAugSepJanZoneISISISISISISISISISISISISISISISISISISISAnomia simplexa ppp a a a p a a a a a a a p a p a p a p a p a p a a aa aa aa aa aaPinctada imbricataa ppppppp a p a a a app a ppppp a p a p a p pa aa pa pa aaHipporina americanaa p a p a app a a a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a p aa aa aa aa aaCanopeum reticuluma p a a a ppppp a p a ppp a p a a a ppp a p a p aa aa aa pa paBalanus eburneusa a a p a app p a a p a p a a a a a a a p a p a a a a aa aa pa pa aaChthalamus fragilisp a p a p a p app a a a p a a p app p a p a a a a p aa pa pa aa aaClionasp.a a a a a a a app a p a p a ppp a ppp a p a p a a aa aa aa aa aaPhragmatopomalapidosaa a p a p a p a p apppppp p a a apppppppp pa pa pa pa paWatersiporasubviodeaa p a p a a a a a p a p a ppp a p a p a a a ppppp pa pa aa aa paDidemnumsp.a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a p a ppp a p aa aa aa aa aaDiplosomasp.a p a p a p a ppppppppppp a p a p a ppppp aa aa aa pa paBalanus amphitritea a a a a a p a a p a p a a a p a p a p a p a p a p a a pa aa aa aa aaBrachiodontes citrinusa p a a p a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a p a a a a aa aa aa aa aaPhallusia nigraa p a a a a a p p a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaBotryllussp.a a a a a app a a a a a a a p a a a a a a a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaBugulasp.a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a p a a a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaHydroides dianthusa p a p a a a a a a a p a a a p a a a p a p a p a a a a aa aa aa aa aaTerebellidsp.a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaActinia bermudensisa p a a a a a app a a a a a a p a a a a a a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaSiderastrea radiansa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a p a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaUnknown blue sponge a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a p a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaVermicularia sp.a a a a a a a a a a a a a a p a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa aa aa aa aaTurbicellaoraavicularisa a a a a a a a a a a a a p a a a p a p a a a p a a aa aa aa aa aaSpecies number ateach habitat1 11 4 8 4 4 8 9 8 9 2 10 2 9 6 13 5 9 2 12 4 14 3 14 4 11 3 9 4 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 4 0Species number at both 0 2 1 5 5 2 2 5 2 2 3 2 4 3 0 0 0 0 0Total see number 12 10 8 12 12 10 9 14 12 12 15 15 11 9 4 3 4 5 4a = absent; p = present.Subtidal speciesCthalamus fragiliswas more intertidal than subtitled and experienced significant, predation;Balanus eburneusrecruited to both intertidal and subtital; Upper intertidal species(Vermiculariasp.) and intertidal.Section 2 4-8 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.2.2.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

The diversity and abundance of anthozoans changes dr amatically with latitude, and to a lesser extent with depth, along the east Florida coast NHBs. Throu ghout tidal pools in the intertidal and very shallow subtidal zones along the entire coast, there are few of these animals present. The species that can be

encountered include the starlet coral Siderastrea spp. ( Figure 4.10 ), two species of zoanthids ( Palythoa

caribaeorum and Zoanthus pulchellus ) ( Figure 4.11 ), and several species of solitary anemones ( Bunodosoma caveranta

, Actinia bermudnesis

, Diadumene leucolena ). These are species that generally have a higher tolerance for the fluctuations in salinity and temperature that occur in these habitats (Muthiga and Szmant, 1987; Lirman et al., 2002). P. caribaeorum is also known to be a very fast growing highly aggressive competitor for space among coral species (Suchanek and Green, 1981). Progressing into the shal low subtidal area these species probably are more abundant, although there are no available data to support this statement. Generally, anthozoans are not very abundant within the 0 to 4 m depth range.

Anthozoan diversity in the subtidal hardbottom changes most significantly with latitude. However, there are very few

studies of anthozoan communities in water depths less than 4 m. North of Martin County, there are generally fewer hard

corals. Besides small Siderastrea spp., the most frequently encountered hard corals are

the Oculina species ( O. varicosa and O.

diffusa ). The latter two species become fairly abundant in water depths in excess of 6 m (Reed et al., 1982; D. McCarthy,

Jacksonville Un iversity, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.). However, there are

occasional occurrences of Cladocora

arbuscula and grouped polyps of Phyllangia

americana and Astrangia spp. (Brooke and Young, 2005). It is in the deeper NHB that

Oculina spp. are likely most important in contributing significant shelter for invertebrate and vertebrate species (Reed,
1982; Reed et al., 1982; Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987). The shelter value of the much deeper (70 to 152 m) O. varicosa reefs has been recognized and has resulted in their being listed as an HAPC by the SAFMC (NMFS, 2007). In

terms of soft corals within NHB , two species of gorgonians ( Leptogorgia virgulata and Leptogorgia hebes ) and one species of telestacean ( Carijoa [ Telesto ] riisei ) are fairly common in the 4 to 6 m depth range. Progressing southward, diversity and abundance of anthozoans, particular ly scleractinians, increase on subtidal hardbottoms (Southeast Florida Coral R eef Evaluation and Monitoring Project [SFCREMP], 2007; J. Beal, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservati on Commission [FWC], pers. comm.). In Martin County, the St. Lucie Inlet Reef appears to be the nor thernmost extent of several of the reef-building Figure 4.11. The zooanthid Zoanthus pulchellus and various other sessile invertebrates (and green algae) on intertidal hardbottom in Palm
Beach, Florida. Photo by D. McCarthy



### . Figure 4.10. An intertidal colony of the

scleractinian Siderastrea sp. in Palm Beach, Florida. Photo by

D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-9 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### corals (i.e., Diploria and Montastraea spp.) that are known important bi odiversity contributors within the Caribbean region. Additionally, a high number of octoco ral species (~15 spp; J. Beal, FWC, pers. comm.) are encountered at this latitude. Consequently, this r eef was recently designated for protection as part of

the St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park because of the diversity and abundance of corals and other shelter-enhancing invertebrate species (polyc haetes, sponges, tunicates, algae) present.

Both diversity and abundance of stony coral specie s on NHB increase southward from Martin County ( Appendix B, Table B.1 ; SFCREMP, 2007). A synthesis of availabl e reports revealed that 7, 22, 24, and 32 stony coral species were identified in NHB in S t. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties, respectively. The SFCREMP (which encompasses si tes in Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties) also documented an increase in stony cora l diversity towards Dade County, although observed species numbers are low because of t he scientific approach used. In their study, the highest diversity of corals among shallower sites (17 to 19 species) occurred in Dade and Broward Counties compared to Palm Beach and Martin Counties (8 to 9 species) (SFCREMP, 2007). They also observed that seven species of stony corals ( Dichocoenia stokesii

, Diploria clivosa

, Millepora alcicornis

, Montastraea

cavernosa

, Porites astreoides

, Siderastrea siderea , and Solenastrea bournoni ) were present in all four counties from Martin to Dade County (SECREMP, 2007) . However, it should be noted that in order to compare all four locations, only the shallowest site s (8 m in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade; 5 m in Martin County) were used, which is outside the desig nated NHB depth range. In shallower hard bottoms (<7 m), Prekel at al. (2007, 2008) and Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (2006) recorded 19 stony coral species on NHB in Broward County, observing that Siderastrea siderea was most common (81.3% of observations of corals), followed by Porites porites

, Dichocoenia stokesii, Phyllangia

americana , and Porites astreoides (accounting for between 1.1% to 4.9% of observations). Also, in Broward County, hardbottom areas have been observed at the 4 m depth and deeper, with fairly high percent cover of the scleractinian Acropora cervicornis (Moyer et al., 2003; Vargas-Angel et al., 2003; SFCREMP, 2007). The tree-like morphology of this coral offers important shelter value to motile invertebrates and vertebrates. Consequently, in 2006 this species (along with A. palmata ) was designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as threatened under the ESA because of its significant decli ne and subsequent risk of extincti on within this Florida-Caribbean region.

The diversity and abundance of octocoral species on NHB likely increases southward from St. Lucie County, although there is not a great amount of data that clearly identifie s whether species were observed within NHB or deeper ( Appendix B, Table B.1 ). In this study, a synthesis of available reports revealed that 3, 12, 14, and 14 octocoral species were identified in NHB in St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties, respectively. However, over 40 octocoral species have been identified in hard bottom habitats up to 8 m in depth from Palm Beac h to Dade Counties (Jaap, 1984; Vare, 1991).

4.2.2.3 Reproduction and Life History

Sexual vs. Asexual Reproduction

There is high diversity in reproductive methods amon g antho zoan species found along east Florida. Most species can reproduce and/or propagate both sexua lly and asexually (see Fautin, 2002 for a review of cnidarian reproduction). However, the relative impor tance of these forms of reproduction in maintaining population numbers varies with the species and so metimes is unclear. Asexual reproduction via longitudinal fission appears to be the dominant form of vegetative prolifer ation among sea anemones (Shick, 1991). This may not be important for most coloni al scleractinians relative to sexual reproduction, but it has been suggested to be the dominant form of reproduction for Acropora cervicornis , whereby propagation occurs when branches break off during a storm and new colonies form (NOAA Fisheries, 2008). There is less information available on gorgonians, but it has been suggested that Plexaura may reproduce via parthenogenesis, whereby eggs develo p without the aid of fertilization (Brazeau and Lasker, 1989). This species may also asexually re produce when branches break during storms (Lasker, 1984).Section 2 4-10 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Seasonal Spawning Patterns

There have not been many studies documenting seasonal reproductive patterns for anthozoans along the Florida coast, but it is likely that many species spaw n at the same times as their Caribbean counterparts. Some species are known to externally fertilize, while others brood their larvae. A number of the scleractinian species in the region have been noted to spawn during late summer. To the north, Oculina spp. spawns during late summer, producing planula that can settle in 3 weeks (Brooke and Young, 2005). While not confirmed for Florida, Leptogorgia spp. and Pseudoplexaura porosa may spawn seasonally during this time period as well (Beasley et al., 1997; Kapela and Lasker, 1999). In southeast Florida, the reef building corals Montastraea annularis

, M. cavernosa

, Acropora cervicornis , and A. palmata (Szmant-Froelich, 1986; Vargas-Angel et al., 2006) also spawn during this time period. In Martin County, it has been suggested that Montastraea and Diploria colonies do not spawn because they are at the

northern limit of their distribution and do not have t he energetic reserves to produce gametes (J. Beal, FWC, pers. comm.).

In contrast to seasonal spawning, some anthozoans may spawn for most of the year. Siderastrea radians

and Porites astreoides brood larvae during an ext ended season and re ach the ability to reproduce at smaller sizes than species such as Diploria spp. and M. cavernosa (Soong, 1991, 1993). S. radians may be encountered throughout the east Florida coast in intertidal and shallow subtidal hardbottoms because of its strong tolerances to environ mental fluctuations and continuous reproductive capability, which allow for it to be able to take advantage of available sp ace created by natural and anthropogenic disturbances throughout the year.

Larval Transport and Recruitment

Little is known about larval transport and recruitmen t for anthozoans along the east Florida coast. The amount of time that larvae can be in the plankton varies from days to months. Some species of zoanthids

have larvae that are well-known for bei ng far dispersed in the plankton. However, while they may survive there for as long as 22 weeks, their ability to metamo rphose may be lost after 11 weeks (Ryland, 1997). Brooke (2002) suggests that larvae of the ivory bush coral ( Oculina varicosa ) not only have the potential to be transported between the deep reef tracts but may also contribute to nearshore shallow water populations during summer upwelling events. In contrast, the staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis likely has low dispersal and hence gene flow, which suggests that this endangered species require local source populations for their recovery (Vollmer and Palumbi, 2007).

Generally, the few studies of hardbottom recrui tment along the east Florida coast have observed infrequent and sporadic seasonal recruitment of antho zoans. Yoshioka (1996) studied recruitment of several gorgonian species on the Atlantic coast of Panama, observing limited yet highly variable seasonal recruitment. Both Cummings (1994) and McCarthy (2001) observed seasonal re cruitment of sessile invertebrates to hardbottoms (4 to 8 m depths) in southeast Florida and encountered only one scleractinian species ( S. radians ). McCarthy (2001) sampled plat es frequently in Boynton Beach for ~2.5 years, encountering this species only once out of over 1,200 settlement plates sampled. Cummings (1994) additionally observed the anthozoans Carijoa ( Telesto ) rii sei

, Bunodosoma granuliferum , and Palythoa mamillosa , while McCarthy encountered only the actiniarian Actinia bermudensis

. Consequently, it appears that anthozoan recruitment is low in these habitats and may not provide rapid recovery and/or maintenance of coral populations a fter natural or anthropogenic disturbance events. Such recovery may be further reduced by cyanobacte ria and macroalgal blooms, which can prohibit coral recruitment and appear to be more frequent along the east Florida coast in recent years (Paul et al., 2005; Ritson-Williams et al., 2005; Kuffner et al., 2006).Section 2 4-11 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.2.3 Sponges

4.2.3.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Sponges are fairly abundant and diverse (50 species ident ified) on all NHBs along the east Florida coast ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). Most species provide shelter for various organisms via internal spaces as well as their external features. Amphipods, crabs, shri mp, nemertines, polychaetes, molluscs, and brittle stars all take refuge in sponges (Wul ff, 2006; D. McCarthy, Ja cksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.). Consequently, when abundant, sponges are important shelter-enhancing invertebrates that can contribute to increased local biodiversity. Sponges ma y also serve as an important food source for many of the angelfishes, filefishes, trunkfishes, cowfishes, and butterflyfishes that are particularly common in southeast Florida (Pawlik, 1998). As filter feeders, they also may be important in removing nutrients (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen) from the water colu mn and thus significantly impact pelagic ecosystems (Peterson et al., 2007; see Bell, 2008 for a review). Fi nally, some sponges can have a detrimental effect. For instance, the rock-boring pionid (formerly c lionid) species can aid in the fragmentation and disintegration of coral heads (Glynn, 1997; Zilberbe rg et al., 2006). The rate of this type of coral disturbance may be accelerated by heavy storms, hurri canes, and any other source of physical stress (Tunnicliffe, 1981; Highsmith, 1982; Rutzler, 2002). Such bioerosion by sponges results in the production of reef sediment, which can affect the structural inte grity of coral (Rutzler, 1975; Glynn, 1997). Further, the proliferation of clionid sponges has been linked to organic pollution and temperature increases (Rose and Risk, 1985; Holmes, 1997; Rutzler, 2002). For ex ample, Ward-Paige et al. (2005) suggested that sewage contamination in the Florida reef tract result s in increases in bioeroding sponges that shift the

carbonate balance from one of reef construction (accretion) to that of reef destruction (erosion).

4.2.3.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

The diversity of sponges probably increases with latitude and depth along the NHBs along the east Florida coast. However, abundance patterns are unclear for most species, with little quantitative information being available for the 0 to 4 m depth range. Within the 5 to 8 m depth range, mean percent cover of sponges is highly variable, ranging between 0.14% and 10.29% in the survey areas (SFCREMP, 2007).

Within the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, t he most conspicuous sponge is the rock-boring sponge Pione lampa (formerly Cliona lampa ) ( Figure 4.12 ). It probably continues on to deeper depths where other rock boring sponges such as Pione delitrix can be encountered. SFCREMP (2008)

observed P. delitrix at the 5 to 8 m depth range for the four locations it studied along the east Florida coast. There were no latitudinal trends with this species, with total colony areas varying between 3.2 and 32.16 cm 2 

### /m 2



### .

4.2.3.3 Reproduction and Life History

Sponges can reproduce sexually and as exually, although the relative importance of these strategies in population maintenance is often unclear. Asexual reproduction (i.e., fragmentation, budding) may be important for a number of the shallower sponge spec ies because of the high frequency of lethal and

sublethal disturbances that result from hi gh wave energy and sand scouring. Some more Figure 4.12. An intertidal colony of the rock-boring sponge Pione (Cliona) lampa in Stuart, Florida.

Photo by D. McCarth y



### .Section 2 4-12 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### vertically-oriented sponges common off east

Florida such as Aplysina spp. ( Figure 4.13 ) and

Iotrochota birotulata may propagate exclusively by asexual fragmentation (Wulff, 1991). Schönberg (2002) suggests that P. lampa can produce gemmules (normally found in freshwater species)
that can resist sand burial, heat, and desiccation

and ensure survival in these harsh habitats. Additionally, gemmules may be scattered and dispersed during periods of increased wave activity along the coast.

Sexually, fertilization in mo st sponges is internal, with embryos being either brooded or shed immediately into the water column. In both cases,

the resultant larvae either swim in the water column or crawl away on the substrate (Maldonado and Bergquist, 2002). For species with planktonic larvae, most appear to be short-lived lecithotrophs liv ing in the plankton from a few hours to several days (Lindquist et al., 1997; Bergquist, 2002).

There is very little information on seasonal spawni ng, dispersal, and recruitment patterns of sponges along the Florida coast. Cummings (1994) often encountered the rock-boring sponge Pione (formerly

Cliona ) lampa during her recruitment study in 2 m of wa ter off Boca Raton. She less frequently

encountered Chondrilla nucula

, Spongia sp., Demapsamma sp., and one unknown species.

4.2.4 Hydrozoans

4.2.4.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Various hydrozoans can be abundant along all NHBs al ong the east Florida coast but are generally lower in diversity (12 species identified) compared to so me of the other sessile invertebrates discussed ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ; Figure 4.14 ). Some species may provide limited shelter for some small organisms, but most probably do not. With t heir relatively small biomass and nematocyst defense capability, it is unlikely, that they are an important part of the food web, although this is not known.

Figure 4.14. Colonial hydrozoans on a mitigation reef in Juno Beach, Florida. Photo by D. McCarthy



### . Figure 4.13. The demosponge Aplysina fistularia on hardbottom off Palm Beach, Florida. Photo

by D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-13 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.2.4.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

It is unknown how the diversity and abundance of hy drozoans change with latitude and depth along east Florida coast NHBs. SFCREMP (2007) encountered the fire coral Millepora alcicornis at a depth of 5 m at the St. Lucie Reef but not at any of the other shallowe r water sites (all other sites were ~8 m) in southeast
Florida. However, M. alcicornis was fairly abundant at deeper sites surveyed. There are few known hydroid species within the intertidal zone, but gener ally several that are common within the shallow subtidal zone. Some of the more commonly occurring hydroid species along the coast include Thyroscyphus ramosus

, Campanulariasp., Eudendrium ramosum

, Lytocarpus philipinus

, Pennaria sp., and Sertularella sp.

4.2.4.3 Reproduction and Life History

Hydrozoans are primarily colonial organisms that ha ve life cycles that may include polyps, medusae, or both. Reproduction can occur via asexual and/or sexual reproduction. Generally, clonal reproduction by budding is most common among the solitary A-form polyps (Ruppert et al., 2004). Offspring that may drift in the plankton (or creep along the sea floor botto m) include asexually produced medusae or planula larvae that are formed via sexual reproduction (exter nal or internal fertilization) of medusae or polyps (Ruppert et al., 2004). Hydrozoan larvae are genera lly short-lived in the plankton. For instance, Mitrocomella polydiademata are ready to settle 3 to 5 days afte r fertilization (Martin and Koss, 2002). Consequently, there probably is very limited dispersal among offspring from their parents.

There is very little information on seasonal spaw ning and recruitment patterns of hydrozoans along the Florida coast. If local species are like temperate hydrozoans, they may repr oduce asexually throughout the year but sexually on a seasonal basis (Coma et al., 1996). Cummings (1994) observed recruitment of Thyroscyphus marginatus

, Eudendrium spp., Lytocarpus philipinus

, Pennaria sp., and Gymnangium spp. throughout the year. In contrast, Walton Smith et al. (1950) observed very low recruitment of hydroids in the Key Biscayne area. The most common identifiable hydroid in that study was Tubularia sp.

4.2.5 Tunicates and Bryozoans

4.2.5.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Tunicates and bryozoans are fairly abundant and dive rse (93 bryozoan species) along all NHBs along the east Florida coast ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). Most occur in colonies (branching or encrusting forms), although there are some solitary forms of tunicates that are abundant (i.e., Phallusia

, Mogula ). Both groups are particularly abundant under ledges and within crevices. Most species probably do not provide very large shelter enhancement to the habitat, but so me do provide shelter to smaller species such as amphipods, crabs, shrimp, nemertines, polychaetes, molluscs, and brittle stars that may take refuge along the edge of colonies or within some branching forms (i.e., Bugula spp.) (Voultsiadou et al., 2007; D. McCarthy, Jack sonville University, Jack sonville, FL, pers. observ.). It is unlikely that many of the tunicates are important in the diet for any hardbotto m predator, as many produce secondary metabolites that deter at least fish predators (Pisut and Pawli k, 2002; Odate and Pawlik, 2007). Bryozoans may be more susceptible to predation, although they have morphological defenses to deter predators as well (Harvell, 1992; Ruppert et al., 2004).

4.2.5.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

There is not a great deal of information availabl e on how the diversity and abundance of tunicates and bryozoans change with latitude and depth along the east Florida coast NHBs. The most conspicuous animals of these types found in tide pools of the lowe r intertidal zones and shallow subtidal habitats are

the colonial tunicates Botryllus planus ( Figure 4.15 ), Botrylloides nigrum

, Didemnum spp. (probably most common), and the bryozoan Watersipora subvoidea . Progressing into the shallow subtidal area, diversity may slightly increase but abundance appears to remain fa irly low. Essentially all bryozoans remain within crevices and under ledges, while several species of tunicate can be found on top of hardbottoms. Some common tunicate species encountered subtidally include Eudistoma sp., Diplostoma sp., Distaplia sp.,Section 2 4-14 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Mogula sp., and Phallusia ( Ascidia ) niagra , with the latter species clearly more abundant from St. Lucie southward (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.).

4.2.5.3 Reproduction and Life History

Most tunicates and bryozoans along the east Florida coast have colonial forms and can reproduce asexually and sexually. Asexually, most tunicates and bryozoans proliferate via budding (Ruppert et al., 2004). In the case of bryozoans, their success at occupying space may be largely related to their capacity for colonial growth via budding (Seed and Hughes, 1992), and this may be the case for tunicates as well. Sexually, individuals in both groups are hermaphrodites that, depending on the species, fertilize internally or externally. While a few

families of tunicates have di rect development, in most cases lecithotrophic larvae are produced that live in the plankton for a few minutes to a few hours (Cloon ey et al., 2002). Consequently, their dispersal distance from parent populations should not be very great. Bryozoan larvae may be either planktotrophic or lecithotrophic, but also have a very shor t planktonic period (Temkin and Zimmer, 2002).

There is very little available information on seaso nal spawning and recruitment patterns of tunicates and bryozoans in the study region. In Bo ynton Beach, the colonial ascidians Didemnum sp. and Diplosoma sp. and the bryozoans Canopeum reticulum and Watersipora subzoidea appear to recruit throughout most of the year (McCarthy, 2001). In the same study, Bugula sp., Phallusia niagra , and Botryllus sp. sporadically recruited just a few times during the 2.8-year study.

4.2.6 Molluscs (Sessile)

4.2.6.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

A number of mollusc species occur on NHBs along the east Florida coast ( Tables 4.1 to 4.4 ; Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). The sessile forms include primarily bivalves but also two species of vermetid gastropods. Most bivalves are found under ledges and within crevices in somewhat low abundance. The vermetid gastropods occur primarily in the upper in tertidal zone (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.). Both groups of molluscs can contribute to enhancing shelter on hardbottoms and may benefit generally smaller invertebr ates (i.e., sipunculans, xanthid crabs, shrimp) and possibly a few small or juvenile fish species. They are likely preyed on by invertebrates and fishes, but no data are available on their trophic importance along the east Florida coast.

4.2.6.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

It is unclear how the diversity and abundance of mollu scs change with latitude and depth along the NHBs along the east Florida coast. The most conspicuous molluscs are found in the upper intertidal zones. These are the vermetid gastropod Petaloconchus nigricans and P. varians , which can form vast networks of tubes (10 to 15 cm thickness) that provide signi ficant shelter for a number of invertebrates (xanthid crabs, sipunculans, polychaetes, and nemertines) and fishes (blennies, gobies, toadfishes). Eight species of bivalves occur at the intertidal worm reef at Stuart: Barbatia dominensis

, Isognomon radiatus

, Musculus lateralis

, Ostrea equestris

, Sphenia a ntillensis

, Anomia sp., Pteria sp., and Pinctada imbricata (McCarthy, 2008). To the north in St. Lucie County , Reed and Mikkelsen (1987) identified 40 bivalve species associated with the scleractinian coral Oculina varicosa at 5.5 m depth. Cummings (1994) and McCarthy (2001) combined identified Isognomon radiatus

, Ostrea equestris

, Anomia simplex

, Pteria sp., Brachiodontes citrinus , and Pinctada imbricata on settlement plates in the 4 to 8 m depth range. Figure 4.15. Botryllus sp. overgrowing dead worm rock at Boynton Beach, Florida. Photo

by D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-15 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.2. Abundance of associated macroinverte brates collected from sabellariid worm reef (Stations 9 and 10 combined) at the St. Lucie Power Plant from April 1976 through April 1979 (From: Applied Biology, Inc., 1979).

1976 1977 1978 1979 Species Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr

MOLLUSCA

Gastropoda

Anachis avara 75 5 3 1

Anachis floridana 2 15 16 1 11

Anachis lafresnayi 1 1

Astraea tuber 1 1

Barleeia tincta 26 1

Cypraea sp. 1

Erato maugeriae 1

Fissurella barbadensis 1 2

Lamellaria perspicua 1 2

Lucapinella Iimatula 2

Mitrella argus 4 36 9 5

Nudibranchia sp. 1

Phidiana ?Iynceus 1 2

Pisania tinctus 1 1

Thais haemastoma floridana 1 1

Thais rustica 3

Tricolia affinis pterocladica 1

Bivalvia

Barbatia domingensis 1

Isognomon radiatus 1

Musculus lateralis 1

Ostrea equestris 4

Sphenia antiIIensis 1 1 1 1

ARTHROPODA

Pycnogonida

Tanystylum sp. 2

Stomatopoda

Gonodactylus bredini 1 1

Gonodactylus sp.
lsopoda

Accalathura crenulata 1

Anthuridae sp. 1

Asellota sp. 1

Dynamenella sp. 1 1 1 2

Excorallana sexticornis 11 5 10 51 9 14 5 56 4 42

Mesanthura decorata 1 4 2 2 3 6

Paranthura infundibulata 1 1 2 1 1 5

Sphaeroma walkeri 6 1 27 70 12 1 3 4 41 7 18Section 2 4-16 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.3. Molluscs recorded during a survey of a ne wly constructed artificial reef structure in the nearshore (~8 m depth) area off Boca Raton, Florida (Adapted from: Cummings, 1994).

● denotes species presence.

Scientific Name December 1988- January 1989 July 1989- August 1989 July 1990

Class Gastropoda

Order Neogastropoda

Anachis floridana ● ●

Thais rustica ● ● ●

Iselica fenestrata ●

Class Bivalvia

Order Pterioida

Isognomon radiatus ● ● ●
Ostrea equestris ● ●

Ostrea sp. ●

Pinctada imbricata ●



### Table 4.4. Data summary for molluscs collected from 41 colonies of the scleractinian coral Oculina

varicosa on four reefs off the east Florida coast (From: Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987). Numbers in parentheses = total species. Density = number of individuals/100 g coral dry weight. Skeletal volume determined by water displacement. Percent dead coral based on dry weight.

Water Depth

6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m

Molluscs

Number of individuals 2,027 61 594 2,450 Average number of individuals/coral 145 15 46 245 Average density 29.3 9.1 3.8 14.7 Gastropod species (155) 59 9 67 89 Bivalve species (68) 40 15 24 46 Total species (230) 101 25 91 140 Mean number of species/coral 18 9 18 42 H' Diversity 2.97 4.24 5.13 4.79 H (Brillouin) 2. 87 3.55 4.81 4.66 E (Equitability) 0.44 0.92 0.79 0.67 DI (Dominance) 54.4 13.1 15.8 23.9

Corals

Number of coral samples 14 4 13 10 Colony dry weight (g) 196-1,207 147-204 526-2,715 279-2,658 Skeletal volume (mL) 97-723 53-110 260-1,431 149-1,544 Percent colony dead 0-62.8 5. 7-40.0 3.4-43.2 27.5-87.9



### 4.2.6.3 Reproduction and Life History

Vermetid gastropods and bivalves are sexually repr oducing invertebrates. Vermetid gastropods are protandrous hermaph rodites that internally fe rtilize, producing lecithotrophic larvae with a short, free-swimming/crawling phase. Bivalves usually hav e separate sexes and either spawn externally or brood larvae. Their embryos may end up in the plan kton, while others may directly develop (Zardus and Martel, 2002). However, most bivalves produce veliger larvae that swim in the plankton for 3 to 4 weeks. Depending on the species, larvae can be planktotrophic or lecithotrophic.Section 2 4-17 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Little is known on seasonal spawning and recruitment patterns of these species along the Florida coast. In Boynton Beach, Vermicularia sp. and Brachiodontes sp. recruitment appears highly sporadic (McCarthy, 2001). In the same area, Pinctada imbricata recruited seasonally, with peak recruitment occurring during the fall (McCarthy, 2001). Larvae from bivalves generally are longer-lived in the plankton than many invertebrates and may have somewhat l onger dispersal among offspring from their parents.

4.2.7 Barnacles

4.2.7.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Barnacles are encountered throughout intertidal, and to a lesser extent, subtidal hardbottoms along the east Florida coast. There are nine species found along the coast ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). They are active suspension feeders that use cirri to move water and feed. When in large numbers, they can provide hardbottom shelter enhancement (usually in t he upper intertidal zone) and serve as a food source for some fishes (i.e., sheepshead) and some larger decapods (stone crabs) and gastropods (oyster drills). However, they are not likely to be very important on a large scale due to their generally low abundance.

4.2.7.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

There is not a great deal of information on how di versity and abundance of barnacles change with latitude and depth along the east Florida coast NHBs. The most conspicuous barnacle, the volcano barnacle ( Tetraclita squamosa stalactifera ), is very prominent along the coast at the upper intertidal zone, where the competitive P. lapidosa does not often occur (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University,
Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.) ( Figure 4.16 ). Multer and Milliman (1 967) also suggested

that T. s. stalactifera compete for space with P. lapidosa in this zone. McCarthy (2001) suggests that P. lapidosa consistently recruits in large numbers and out-competes other recruit species such as barnacles by growing

over them. When P. lapidosa is not present, a number of other barnacle species may often be present in these habitats. The barnacle

Balanus tintinnabulum antillensis was observed attached to cocinoid rock underlying

the worm-built structure on Hutchinson Island (Camp et al., 1977) and on an artificial reef in Boca Raton (Cummings, 1994). The invasive

barnacle Megabalanus cocopoma was identified on intertidal hard bottom in Stuart (McCarthy, 2006). McCarthy (2001) observed the following barnacle species on intertidal and subtidal hard bottoms in Boynton Beach:

Balanus eburneus

, B. amphitrite , and Chthamalus fragilis . Further to the south in the Key Biscayn e area, additional barnacles encountered are Balanus improvisus and Chthamalus stellatus (Walton Smith et al., 1950). Considering relatively high dispersal ability, most of these species probably occur throughout intertidal and shallow subtidal hardbottoms along the east Florida coast.

4.2.7.3 Reproduction and Life History

Most barnacles are simultaneous hermaphr odites that externally fertilize eggs within their mantle cavities. Eggs are brooded there, hatch out into the plankt on, and become nauplius larvae that are carried with currents until they settle as cyprids. Many cyprids may preferentially settle on conspecifics, cuing in on chemical and topographical features of the adults (R uppert et al., 2004). Generally, there is perceived to Figure 4.16. The volcano barnacle Tetraclita squamosa

stalactifera and various other sessile

invertebrates on intertidal hardbottom in Palm Beach, Florida. Photo by D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-18 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### be high initial post-settlement mortality, with surv iving barnacles probably living 1 to 10 years, depending on various abiotic and biotic factors (Ruppert et al., 2004).

Little is known about seasonal reproductive patterns of most barnacles along the east Florida coast, although some species may have similar patterns as c ounterparts within the region. McCarthy (2001)

observed barnacle recruitment on intert idal and subtidal (4 to 5 m) hardbottom habitats in Boynton Beach. In the intertidal zone, all three barnacle species encountered ( Balanus eburneus, B. amphitrite, and Chthamalus fragilis ) recruited seasonally, with peak recruitment occurring during the summer time period (May to August). C. fragilis recruited more intertidally rather t han subtidally and generally was the most abundant barnacle recruiter during the study. B. eburneus was the only barnacle species that recruited equally to both intertidal and subtidal habitats. In contrast, B. amphitrite was the most abundant subtidally, recruiting throughout the year, while B. eburneus and C. fragilis had sporadic recruitment patterns. The study also suggested that there may be significant post-settlement mortality by mobile predators (i.e., crabs and fishes) for C. fragilis in subtidal habitats but not for any of the other barnacle species. In southeast Florida, B. amphitrite and B

. improvisus had similar seasonal peaks in recruitment as those found by McCarthy (2001) but were also fou nd to recruit more continuously throughout the year (Walton Smith et al., 1950). Interestingly, Tetraclita spp. were essentially non-ex istent in both studies yet are often the most abundant adult barnacles along the co ast. A possible explanation for this may be that settlement plates in both studies were not placed high enough in the intertidal zone to observe recruitment of this species. Larval behavioral pr eferences may have positioned such competent larvae so that they were transported only to these upper reaches of the intertidal zone where most adults are found.

4.3 MOTILE SPECIES

4.3.1 Crustaceans

4.3.1.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

The structure provided by east Florida coast NHBs supports a high diversity and abundance of crabs, stomatopods, shrimp, lobsters, isopods, and amphipods ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). Sabellariid reefs, in particular, support an even higher diversity and abund ance of these crustaceans than neighboring sand or hardbottom habitats. Van Montfrans (1981) repo rted that the majority of decapods along the east Florida coast can be regarded as tropical in origin, as can be seen by their asso ciations with southern latitude coral reefs. Furthermore, Phragmatopoma worm rock reefs are an important habitat for tropical marine decapods ( Figure 4.17 ), especially in the high energy surf zone, where corals tend not to prevail at the more northern latitudes.

Trophically, crustaceans are important in food webs along the east Florida coast as major prey for other invertebrates and fishes. They can also be important as predators of various invertebrates and small fishes (USFWS, 1999). Gore et al

. (1978) postulated a possible food sub-web for

sabellariid colonies on the east Florida coast based on the gut contents of six common species

collected. The worms form the basis of the food sub-web on which some species of reef-dwelling crabs forage ( Figure 4.2 ). Figure 4.17. Tidal spray crab ( Plagiusa depressa )
in Palm Beach, Florida. Photo by

D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-19 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.3.1.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

The most quantitative research with any invertebr ate group along the Florida coast has been done with

crustaceans. While most of this research was don e over 20 years ago, the co mbined results provide the bulk of what is known about the hardbottom community ecology along the east Florida coast.

Decapods

Camp et al. (1977) studied the nearshore ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida (September 1971 to July 1974). Sampling occurred during the day on five stati ons at depths of 7 to 11 m on sand and sand shell substrate. Three nearshore zones included 1) the sh allow beach terrace, 2) crest of shallow off shore shoal, and 3) a deeper “trough” zone between them. More than 170 species of arthropods (of which 113 were included in quantitative analysis) were reco rded. Species recruitment curves never reached asymptote over the 2 years because of high species turnover rate and some poor grab efficiencies. Some 25 to 36 arthropods found only at the interti dal worm reef were unique to that habitat, with 13 others also found offshore ( Table 4.5 ). Highest densities of organism s were encountered from July to September, and lowest densities occu rred January to March. The crabs Pachycheles monilifer (porcellanid crab) and Pachygraphsus transverses (grapsid crab) were numerically dominant, but in terms of biomass, Menippe nodifrons (xanthid crab) was dominant. M. nodifrons was observed physically altering the reef by breaking off pieces, crushing them to expose the worms, and feeding on them. Shared species occurred infrequently or in low abu ndance offshore, indicating a distinct difference between worm reef and offshore faunas. Consequently , species associated with worm rock habitat were unique to that habitat compared to that offshore ( Table 4.5 ).

In a nearby study, Applied Biology, Inc. (1979) moni tored a worm reef at the Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Power Plant from April 1976 to Apr il 1979. Most of the sabellariid-associated fauna in this study were crustaceans, molluscs, and echinoder ms. Species encountered, in order of abundance,

were Menippe nodifrons

, Pachycheles monilifer, Excorallana sexticornis , and Sphaeroma walki (isopods)

and Pachygrapsus transverses ( Tables 4.2

, 4.6 , and 4.7 ). The number of associated species collected was highest in July when water temperatures peaked and reef size was largest. Numbers and diversity of organisms was lowest in October to January, when wa ter temperatures were decreasing and reef size

was the smallest.

Gore et al. (1978) investigated latitudinal changes in cr ustaceans in a 2-year study of four worm reef sites

on the central east Florida coast from St. Lucie Inlet north to Sebastian Inlet (1974 to 1975). A total of 96 species of decapod and stomatopod crustaceans representing 52 genera and 22 families was identified. Two surveys occurred, with sampling co nducted both on the worm reef itself and in areas adjacent to the reef. Specifically associated with the worm reef were 24 common species, of which the first 11 species comprised 90% and the next 13 species co mprised 4% to 7% of the collected samples. The remaining 3% (27 species) were considered uncommon ( Table 4.8 ). The six most common species (80% of the samples) were the porcellanid crab Pachycheles monilifer , the grapsid crab Pachygraphsus

transverses , the aphid pistol shrimp Synalphus fritzmuelleri , and the xanthid crabs Menippe nodifrons

, Pilum nus dasypodus , and Panopeus bermudensis

. P. monilifer and M. nodifrons are restricted to worm reefs along the east coast of Florida. The abundance of the dominant species was relatively similar at all sites, but the less dominant species varied among sites ( Table 4.9 ). This variability is also indicated in that about 20 species appeared to be common to Gore et al

. (1978) surveys ( Table 4.5 ) and about 31 species more occur in Gore et al. (1978) that ar e not listed in Camp et al. (1977). Furthermore, species richness was highest at St. Lucie Inlet sout h, intermediate (53%) towards the north from Walton Rocks to Fort Pierce Inlet, and lowest (13%) at Sebastian Inlet north.Section 2 4-20 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.5. Comparison of worm reef arthropods found in the vicinity of Hutchinson Island, Florida with arthropod species found offshore in the same area (From: Camp et al., 1977). ● denotes species presence.

Stations

I II III* IV V

Depths (m) Species Found Only at Worm Reef Rank Species Found at Worm Reef

and Offshore Sites

8.4 11.2 7.1 10.9 10.9

Balanus tintinnabulum antillensis Tanystylum orbiculare ● ●

Paranthura infundibulata Balanus trigonus (on Plagiusa depressa) ● ● ● ● ●

Sphaeroma walkeri Gonodactylus bredini ● ● ● ●

Bopyridae sp. D (on Petrolisthes armatus) Periclimenes americanus ● ● ● ●

Alpheus malleator Alpheus formosus ●

A. nuttingi A. normanni ● ● ● ●

A. thomasi Synalpheus sp. B ●

Synalpheus fritz muelleri Paguroidea sp. ● ● ● ●

Synalpheus sp. A Paguristes hummi ● ● ● ●

Calcinus tibicen Epialtus sp. ● ●

Paguristes tortugae Mithrax forceps ● ●

Pagurus brevidactylus Mithrax sp. ● ●

Megalobrachium poeyi Pitho lherminieri ● ●

Pachycheles monilifer 2

Petrolisthes armatus

P. galathinus

Microphrys bicornutus

Mithrax coryphe

Eurypanopeus abbreviatus

Menippe nodifrons 1

Panopeus bermudensis

Pilumnus dasypodus

Xantho denticulatus

Pachygrapsus transversus 2

Plagusia depressa

Yellow shading indicates species in common with Gore et al., 1978 study.

* Station III had no hard substrate.Section 2 4-21 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.6. Abundance of associated decapods collect ed from sabellariid worm reef (Stations 9 and 10 combined) at the St. Lucie Power Plant from April 1976 through April 1979 (From: Applied Biology, Inc., 1979).

1976 1977 1978 1979 Species Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Alpheus formosus 1 2 1 6 5 1 1 3 Alpheus malleator 2 Alpheus normanni 1 Alpheus nuttingi 1 4 3 Alpheus thomasi 2 2 Alpheus sp. A 1 Alpheus sp. 2 2

Calcinus tibicen 1 Epialtus sp. 1 Eriphia gonagra Hippolytidae sp. 1 Lysmata intermedia 2 1 Lysmata wurdemanni 1 Lysmata wurdemanni? Majidae sp. 1 Menippe mercenaria 2 4 3 3 3 1 6 6 2 Menippe nodi frons 26 11 172 27 19 114 198 159 19 58 99 93 35 Microphrys bicornutus 1 Pachycheles monolifer 107 101 42 3 66 71 39 86 74 36 1 15 69 Pachygrapsus transversus 23 5 28 4 4 22 23 8 4 10 14 13 32 Pagurus carolinensis 1 1 4 3 1 2 Panopeus bermudensis 1 2 3 6 2 2 16 2

Pelia mutica 1

Petrolisthes armatus 1 1 1 1 Petrolisthes galathinus 1 2 Pilumnus dasypodus 2 19 11 14 10 22 3 3 3

Pilumnus sp. 2 1 2 2

Pitho lherminieri 2

Pi tho sp. 1 Plagusia depressa 1 1 Synalpheus fritzmuelleri 6 6 2 2 3 74 15 4 13 1 1 2 Synalpheus townsendi 1 Synalpheus sp. 1 Upogebia affinis 1

Xantho denticulatus 2 1 1

Xanthidae sp. 1 3



### Table 4.7. Comparison of associated decapod and stomatopod crustaceans from studies at Walton

Rocks and the St. Lucie Power Plant (From: Applied Biology, Inc., 1979).

Applied Biology, Inc.

St. Lucie Power Plant Smithsonian Institution

Fort Pierce Bureau b

Walton Rocks Florida Department of

Natural Resources

Within 2 km South of

St. Lucie Power Plant

June 1975 1974 1975 April 1976 through January 1977 April 1977 through January 1978 April 1978 through January 1979

Number of genera 22 15 11 12 18 14

Number of species 30 20 13 15 29 18

Diversity (d)
--- 1.88 1.62 1.88 2.3 2.28

Equitability (e)
--- 0. 1 0.31 0.33 0.24 0.39

a Camp et al., 1977.

b Gore et al., 1978 and R.H. Gore, pers. comm.Section 2 4-22 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.8. The 51 most recurrent species of decapod and stomatopod crustaceans encountered from sabellariid worm reefs in the Indian River region of Florida, 1974 to 1975 (From: Gore et al., 1978).

St. Lucie Walton Rocks Fort Pierce Sebastian Taxon 1974 1975 1974 1975 1974 1975 1974* Abundance 60% to 80% Spawning

1. Pachycheles monilifer 127 163 256 None C MC Year round
2. Menippe nodifrons 98 216 107 22 C MC May-Aug
3. Synalpheus fritzmuelleri 54 64 42 None C MC Year round

4. Pachygrapsus transversus 51 48 56 66 C MC Year round

5. Pilumnus dasypodus 17 15 64 None C MC May-Aug

6. Pitho lherminieri 14 4 None None C

7. Mithrax coryphe 14 2 6 None C
8. Gonodactylus bredini 11 4 None None C

9. Pilumnus sayi 9 None 18 None C Jan-Aug

10. Petrolisthes galathinus 8 1 14 None C Jan-Aug

11. Alpheus formosus 8 None 8 None C Jan-Jul

12. Pagurus carolinensis 8 1 1 None C May-Aug?

13. Xantho denticulatus 7 3 None None C
14. Gonodactylus oerstedii 7 None None None C

15. Menippe mercenaria 6 20 24 3 C
16. Synalpheus sp. A 6 None 4 None C

17. Epialtus bituberculatus 6 None 10 None C Jan-Aug

18. Alpheus nuttingi 5 4 9 None C Nov-Aug

19. Microphrys bicornutus 4 None 4 None C

20. Plagusia depressa 3 2 1 1 C May-Aug?

21. Panopeus bermudensis 2 15 44 4 C MC May-Oct

22. Alpheus thomasi 2 4 2 None C Jan-Aug?
23. Synalphells minlls 2 None 7 None C
24. Synalpheus townsendi 2 2 3 None C Jan-Aug

25. Uhlias limbatus 2 None None None UC

26. Processa fimbriata 2 None 1 None UC

27. Metalpheus rostratipes 1 2 None None UC

28. Lysmata intermedia 1 None 1 None UC

29. Petrolisthes armatus 1 1 1 None UC

30. Alpheus normanni 1 None None None UC

31. Epialtus dilatatus 1 None None None UC

32. Alpheus paracrinitus 1 None None None UC

33. Megalobrachium soriatum 1 None None None UC

34. Mithrax acuticornis 1 None None None UC
35. Neopontonides beaufortensis 1 None None None UC

36. Mithrax pleuracanthus 1 None None None UC
37. Upogebia affinis 1 None None None UC

38. Platyactaea setigera 1 None None None UC

39. Micropanope granulimanus 1 None None None UC

40. Mithrax hispidus None 2 None None UC

41. Alpheus armillatus None 1 4 None UC

42. Periclimenes americanus None 1 1 None UC

43. Eurypanopeus dissimilis None 1 None None UC

44. Lysmata wurdemanni None None 1 None UC
45. Synalpheus brevicarpus None None 1 None UC

46. Alpheus bouvieri None None 1 1 UC

47. Paguristes tortugae None None 1 None UC

48. Eurypanopeus abbreviatus None None 1 None UC

49. Alpheus heterochaelis None None 1 None UC

50. Panopeus occidentalis None None None 5 UC

51. Panopeus herbstii None None None 1 UC

* Sebastian Inlet station not sampled in 1975. C = common (97%); MC = most common (80%); UC = Uncommon (3%).Section 2 4-23 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.9. Species richness of decapod and stomatopod crustaceans collected from sabellariid worm reefs in the Indian River region of Florida, 1974 to 1975 (From: Gore et al., 1978).

St. Lucie Walton Rocks Fort Pierce Sebastian*

Most species rich 49% common with St. Lucie 56% common with St. Lucie 13% common with St. Lucie

39 species 19 of 39 species 22 of 39 species 5 of 39 species

* Sebastian Inlet station not sampled in 1975.



### Encompassing a larger geographical area along the Florida coast, van Montfrans (1981) studied decapod

crustaceans associated with worm rock at five sites from Miami north to Cape Canaveral. There were a few species that accounted for the majority of i ndividuals inhabiting intertidal and subtidal zones ( Tables 4.10 and 4.11 ). The 4 most abundant of 15 species id entified in the intertidal zone included Pachygrapsus transvenus, Menippe nodifrons, Panopeus bermudensis

, and Pilumnus lacteus. In the subtidal zone, the 4 most abundant of 10 species included Synalpheus fritznuelleri , Pilumnus dasypodus, Menippe nodifrons, and Petrolisthes galathinus. Furthermore, species common to both subtidal and

intertidal habitats included Menippe nodifrons, Panopeus bermudensis, Pachygrapsus transverses, Petrolisthes armatus, and Pilumnus lacteus. In terms of cross-shelf distribution, the diversity and abundance of decapods tended to increase with depth. In terms of latitudinal distribution in the subtidal zone, total numbers were highest at Deerfield Beach (610) but decreased towards the north at Hutchinson Island (394), Fort Pierce (202), and Satelli te Beach (71). Moreover, total numbers decreased south of Deerfield Beach at Miami (296) ( Table 4.12 ). Towards the southern two study sites (Miami and Deerfield Beach), Pilumnus dasypodus, Petrolisthes galathinus, and Synalpheus fritznuelleri were dominant, although their order of dominance varied. In the central two study sites (Hutchinson Island and Fort Pierce) the dominant species mix consisted of Menippe nodifrons (which occurs subtidally and intertidally)

, Synalpheus fritznuelleri , Pachycheles monilifer

, and Petrolisthes galathinus. At the most northern study site (Satellite Beach) , the species mix changed to the fo llowing three dominant species: Menippe nodifrons, Pachygrapsus transvenus, and Petrolisthes armatus. Many tropical species (Families: Alpheidae, Palaemonidae, Hippolytidae, Stenopodidae, Paguridae, Palinuridae, Porcellanidae, Xanthidae, Grapsidae, and Majidae) decrease in numbers and species from south to north, probably due to higher variability in sea surface temperature near Cape Canaveral versus Miami, and may be displaced further offshore in the north (van Montfrans, 1981).

Table 4.10. Rank analysis of intertidal decapods from the east Florida coast (From: van Montfrans, 1981).

Species Bio1. Index (3-pt. System) Frequency as One of Top Three Species in

Nine Samples Frequency in

Nine Samples Total Number

Collected Greater

Numbers Occurring in a Sample Overall Density/ 1,000 m of Reef Sampled

Pachygrapsus transvenus 26 9 9 324 97 1.969

Menippe nodifrons 11 5 5 113 91 0.687

Panopeus bermudensis 4 3 4 23 17 0.140

Pilumnus lacteus 4 2 2 11 10 0.067

Alpheus bouvieri 2 1 3 7 3 0.043

Clibinarius tricolor 2 1 2 3 2 0.018

Eriphia gonagra 2 1 2 3 2 0.018

Paguristes tortugae 2 1 1 2 2 0.012

Pagurus carolinensis 2 1 1 20 20 0.121

Petrolisthes armatus 2 2 4 10 6 0.061

Alpheus malleator l 1 1 1 1 0.006

Cyclograpsus integer 1 1 1 2 2 0.012

Eurypanopeus abbreviatus 1 1 1 2 2 0.012

Menippe mercenaria 1 1 4 5 2 0.030

Plagiusa depressa 1 1 2 3 2 0.018

Species highlighted in yellow occur in both intertidal and subtidal habitats.Section 2 4-24 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.11. Rank analysis of the dominant subtidal decapods from the east Florida coast (From: van Montfrans, 1981).

Species Bio1. Index (3-pt. System) Frequency as One of Top Three Species

in Nine Samples Frequency in

Nine Samples Total Number

Collected Greater

Number Occurring in a Sample Overall Density/ 1,000 m of Reef Sampled

Synalpheus fritznuelleri 11 6 7 443 131 1.727

Pilumnus dasypodus 10 5 6 255 84 0.994

Menippe nodifrons 9 4 7 330 241 1. 287

Petrolisthes galathinus 6 3 4 399 308 1. 556

Panopeus bermudensis 5 2 6 131 65 0.51

Pachycheles monilifer 5 3 6 101 56 0.218

Pachygrapsus transversus 5 2 5 34 15 0.132

Petrolisthes armatus 1 1 7 27 6 0.105

Pilumnus lacteus 1 1 3 87 62 0.339

Lysmata wurdemianni 1 1 2 11 7 0.027

Species highlighted in yellow occur in both intertidal and subtidal habitats.



### Table 4.12. Total number of the three most common s ubtidal decapod species at stations along the east Florida coast (Adapted from: van Montfrans, 1981).

Station A

Dade

Miami Station B

Broward

Deerfield Beach Station E

St. Lucie

Hutchinson Island Station C

St. Lucie

Fort Pierce Station D

Brevard

Satellite Beach

Pilumnus dasypodus 106 Petrolisthes galathinus 328 Menippe nodifrons 247 Pachycheles

monilifer 71 Menippe

nodifrons 44

Petrolisthes galathinus 103 Synalpheus

fritznuelleri 165 Synalpheus

fritznuelleri 137 Petrolisthes galathinus 71 Pachygrapsus

transvenus 20

Synalpheus

fritznuelleri 87 Pilumnus dasypodus 117 Pachycheles

monilifer 10 Synalpheus

fritznuelleri 60 Petrolisthes

armatus 7

Totals 296 610 394 202 71

All common to the

subtidal zone All common to the

subtidal zone M. nodifrons common to

both zones All common to the

subtidal zone All common to both

subtidal and intertidal

zones

Southern sites Middle sites Northern range

Species highlighted in yellow occur in both intertidal and subtidal habitats.



### Reed et al. (1982) studied the composition of dec apod crustaceans and the total number of individuals per species on east Florida oculinid coral reefs. A total of 50 species was identified with four locations of varying depth being examined: Fort Pierce Inlet (6 m), north of Fort Pierce (27 m), south of Fort Pierce (42 m), and offshore east of Fort Pierce Inlet (80 m depth). Species showed strong clustering by station with a gradual decrease in density as depth increased ( Table 4.13 ). At the 6-m depth, there were discrete species clusters that were considerably diffe rent from all the other stat ions. Stations at 42- and 80-m depths showed little species differences. Specie s composition was relatively stable at each depth,

and there were no dramatic seasonal overturns of asse mblages. However, there was a degree of trophic portioning between the shallow station (Fort Pierce : 6 m), which was numerically dominated by the filter-feeding porcellanid crab Megalobrachium soriatum , and the 27-m station, which was dominated by

the carnivorous Pagurus carolinensis . Four species that were found at all study sites included Megalobrachium soriatum and Synalpheus townsendi ( Tables 4.13 and 4.14 ).Section 2 4-25 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.13. Numerical abundance of decapod species at Oculina varicosa coral reef stations at depths of 6, 27, 42, and 80 m (Adapted from: Reed et al., 1982).

Number

Abundance 6 m

Fort Pierce Inlet 27 m

North of Fort Pierce 42 m

South of Fort Pierce

St. Lucie Inlet 80 m

Offshore East of

Fort Pierce

1 Megalobrachium soriatum Pagurus carolinensi s Pagurus carolinensis Pagurus carolinensis

2 Pachycles monilifer Megalobrachium soriatum Mega lobrachium soriatum Megalobrachium soriatum

3 Mithrax forceps Synalpheus townsendi Pagurus piercei Pagurus piercei

4 Thor manningi Mithrax forceps Synal pheus townsendi Sy nalpheus townsendi

5 Synalpheus fritzmuelleri Pelia mutica Periclimenes iridescens Galathea rostrata

6 Synalpheus cf. townsendi Stenorhynchus seticornis Micropanope scuptipes

7 Micropanope nuttingi Thor manningi

8 Paguristes tortugae Pseudomedaeus distinctus

9 Pseudomedaeus agassizii

10 Nematopaguroides pusillus

11 Euchirograpsus americanus



### Table 4.14. Percent occurre nce of decapod species at Oculina varicosa coral reef stations at depths of 6, 27, 42, and 80 m (Adapted from: Reed et al., 1982).

Percent

Occurrence 6 m

Fort Pierce Inlet 27 m

North of Fort Pierce 42 m

South of Fort Pierce

St. Lucie Inlet 80 m

Offshore East of

Fort Pierce Pagurus piercei Synalpheus townsendi ~100 Pagurus carolinensis Megalobrachium soriatum Pagurus carolinensis

Galathea rostrata Megalobrachium soriatum Pagurus carolinensis ~90 Mithrax forceps Pagurus piercei Micropanope scuptipes

~80 Pachycles monilifer Synalpheus townsendi Thor manningi

Pseudomedaeus distinctus ~70 Synalpheus townsendi Peri climenes iridescens
Nematopaguroides pusillus Thor manningi Megalobrachium soriatum ~60 Synalpheus fritzmuelleri Megalobrachium soriatum Euchirograpsus americanus Mithrax forceps

Pelia mutica Stenorhynchus seticornis Micropanope nuttingi ~50 Synalpheus cf. townsendi

Paguristes tortugae Pseudomedaeus agassizii

≤ 40 Rest Rest Rest



### Crustacean species found on 6-m oculinid corals include Epialtus spp., Pagurus spp., and Synalpheus spp. (which is often associated with sponges and alg ae) (Reed et al., 1982). Also, there were 14 species that appeared to be shared between oculinid and sabellari id worm reefs mentioned in Gore et al. (1978). Furthermore, Reed et al. (1982) reported that on oculinid reefs, Pachycheles monolifer and Synalpheus

fritzmuelleri were abundant

, Pagurus carolinensis was common, and that Syalpheus minus

, S. townsendi

, and Megalobrachium soraitum were rare on sabellariid reefs. Species common on the sabellariid reefs

but rare on oculinid reefs included Pilumnus dasypodus

, Petrolisthes galathinus

, Epialtus sp., Alpheus

formosus , and Synalpheus cf. fritzmulleri

.

The gradient in species assemblages was attributed to a gradient of environm ental factors across the shelf ( Table 4.15 ). At a depth of 6 m, the environment is characterized as having variable wave surge and sedimentation. The temperatur e was about 25°C and varied less relative to other sites, which accounted in part for the highest diversity of species – 11 endemic and uniquely associated with this depth. At 42 m, temperature was more variable, av eraging about 18°C, with relatively less wave energy and sedimentation. As a result, diversity and number of endemic species was relatively low but individual numbers were highest. At the 80-m depth, the physical parameters were similar to those at the 42-m station, but there were relatively high numbers of species and endemic species but lowest individualSection 2 4-26 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### numbers of each species. Temperature changes caused by upwelling events that occur periodically were considered to be an important factor controlling t he community structure on these oculinid reefs.

Table 4.15. Physical parameters measured between 1976 and 1979 at Oculina varicosa coral reef stations at depths of 6, 27, 42, and 80 m. Range (mean and ± 1 standard deviation) (From: Reed et al.

, 1982).

Parameter 6 m

Fort Pierce Inlet 27 m

North of Fort Pierce 42 m

South of Fort Pierce

St. Lucie Inlet 80 m

Offshore East of

Fort Pierce

Salinity (%) 28.2-36.4 (32.5 ±

 3.4) 35.9-36.2 (only 2 val ues) 35.7-36.4 (36.0 ± 0.2)

Temperature (°C) 13.7-31.0 ( 24.6 ± 3.1) 8.0-27.8 (18.4 ± 2.7) 7.4-26.7 (16.2 ± 3.7)

Current (cm/sec) 0-70.5 (8.9 ± 2.1) 0- 49.5 (8.7 ± 2.4) 0-58.5 (8.6 ± 1.7)

Visibility (m) 0-9 (3 ± 2) 0-21 (9 ± 5) 0-25 (9 ± 5)

Sedimentation (mg/cm 2 /day) 137-1,640 (846 ± 593) No data available

No data available 15-78 (53 ± 34)



### Further south along the coast, Cummings (1994) report ed the presence of six species of crustaceans associated with the colonization of a newly constr ucted artificial reef structure in the nearshore (~8 m depth) area off Boca Raton, Florida (April 1988 to July 1990). Decapod species observed from December to January 1988 included Eurypanopeus abbreviatus and Percnon gibbesi. From July to August 1989, Mithrax forceps

, Pagurus carolinensis , and Percnon gibbesi were identified. In addition to these species, Sultzman (1990, 1997) encountered penaeid shrimp and blue crabs in the nearshore areas along the Florida coast.

Isopods and Amphipods

Nelson and Demetriades (1992) sampled worm rock from rock jetties at Sebastian Inlet, Florida, for a period of 1 year (April 1984 to March 1985) at daytime low tides. They collected six isopod species, of

which Paradella dianae (53,000/m 2 

### ) and Sphaeroma walkeri (35,000/m 2 

### ) represented 98% of the total number of 6,136 isopods present ( Table 4.16 ). Two peaks in abundance occurred for both species during the year (February-March and August-October). Recruitment was year-round (both species), and growth was bimodal for P. dianae (mode 1.1 to 1.5 mm size class in all months; 2.7 to 3.1 mm some months; shifted smaller [2.3 to 2.7 mm] or larger [3.1 to 3.5 mm]) and bimodal and skewed unimodal for Sphaeroma walkeri (some months mode 0.85 to 1.75 mm size class; shifted smaller [1.75 to 2.65 mm] or larger [2.65 to 3.55 mm] some months). Total monthly isopod density was negatively correlated with percent algal coverage on worm reef, and S. walkeri density was negatively correlated with air and water temperature on the north jetty site (which received more sunlight) but not on the south jetty site. Pardella

danae density was not significantly correlated with physical parameters. Filamentous algal coverage by species such as Enteromorpha sp. tended to restrict access to suitable crevices in the worm rock. Nelson and Demetriades (1992) also collected 10 amphipod species, of which Hyale perieri (22,000/m 2 

### ), Elasmopus pectinicrus (10,000/m 2 

### ), and Ampithoe pollex (4,000/m 2 

### ) represented 91% of the total number of 3,801 amphipods ( Table 4.16 ). Maximum abundance was observed to occur in late summer and early spring for Hyale perieri and was negatively correlated with salinity

. For E. pectinicrus , a single maximum occurred during October to November, and abundance for A. pollex appeared to be lowest during November to January and was positively correlated with air temperature.

S. walkeri is more widely distributed than P. danae along the east Florida coast (Camp et al., 1977). Carlton and Iverson (1981) described its natural history and indicate that distribution is temperature-limited at a minimum surface winter isot herm of 15°C, which is typical at Sebastian Inlet (December to January). P. danae is typically cryptic in its habitat and found under stones, in empty barnacle tests, under chitons, in empty worm rock tubes, or in crevices of worm rock.Section 2 4-27 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 4.16. Abundance of isopods and amphipods fr om sabellariid worm rock with percentage of contribution of species to total abundance of each order at Sebastian Inlet, Florida, April 1984-March 1985 (From: Nelson and Demetriades, 1992).

Species Abundance Percentage of

Relative Abundance
Isopoda

Paradella dianae 4,244 69.0

Sphaeroma walkeri 1,757 28.7

Paranthura infundibulata 79 1.3

Jaeropsis sp. nov. 1 39 0.7

Excorallana spp. 2 19 0.3

Amphipoda

Hyale perieri 2,189 57.5

Elasmopus pectinicrus 966 25.4

Ampithoe pollex 396 10.4

Corophium acutum 145 3.8

Ericthonius sp. 55 1.4

Jassa cf. falcata 21 0.5

Ampithoe longimana 18 0.5

Stenothoe georgiana 11 0.3

Podocerus brasiliensis 2 0.1

Cymadusa compta 1 0.1

1 Undescribed species, T.E. Bowman, personal communication.

2 Includes two species, one of which is probably Excorallana sexlicornis . Positive identifications could not be made

because few fully differentiate d males were present (T.E. Bowman, personal communication).



### 4.3.1.3 Reproduction and Life History

Most crustaceans have separate sexes and reproduce sexually. Depending on the species, fertilization can be internal or external, with eggs being either sh ed directly into the sea or brooded by the females (most common with crabs and shrimp). In either case, most crustaceans produce larvae (nauplius or zoea) that eventually end up as part of the plankton. They can be lecit hotrophic or planktotrophic and can be in the plankton from a few weeks (i.e., xanthid crabs, penaeid shrimp) to almost a year (i.e., spiny lobster) (Lyons et al., 1981; Young and Chia, 1987; Flori da Wildlife Research Institute [FWRI], 2007a). In contrast, isopods, amphipods, and other pericarids lack larval stages. Their young emerge as miniature versions of the adults. Consequently, there is a wide range of dispersal capabilities among crustaceans. Upon recruitment, some become reproductive quickly and are short-lived like the amphipods and isopods (Nelson and Demetriades, 1992), while others, such as stone crabs (Lindberg and Marshal, 1984; Bert, 1992; FWRI, 2007b) and spiny lobster (Lyons et al., 1981), may live several years.

General reproduction and life histor y are fairly well known for such groups as penaeid shrimp and blue crabs. Penaeid shrimp have a short life span of ab out 1.5 years and spawn offshore in deeper waters (FWRI, 2006). The larvae develop in the plankton and move back into the salt marshes and tidal creeks.

Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) have a life span of about 4 years, reaching sexual maturity in 1 year (Tagatz, 1968a). Females mate once in their lifetim e during March to July or October to December (Tagatz, 1968a,b). After mating in the upper reaches of estuaries, females migrate to the mouth of the estuary and nearshore areas to spawn (FWRI, 2007c). Zoea drift in continental shelf waters for as long as 30 to 45 days (FWRI, 2007c), but this can vary by species and with temperature.

The Cuban stone crab (Menippe nodifrons ) spawns from May to August (Gore et al., 1978), and the megalope stage is attainable within 16 to 17 days at 30 °C in the laboratory, versus 28 to 37 days at 20°C (Scotto, 1979). Cuban stone crabs are closely a llied to their commercial exploited counterpart Menippe mercenaria, which also has abbreviated zoeal stages (five or atypically six), depending on the ambientSection 2 4-28 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### water temperature (Scotto, 1979). Ong and Costlow (1970) suggested 30°C was the optimum survival temperature for M. mercenaria larvae, with optimum salinity of 30 to 35 ppt (megalopal stage was reached in 14 days, first crab in 21 days, with 60% to 72% larval survival rate). Highest survival rate with

M. nodifrons (15%) occurred at 20°C (megalopal stage was reached in 28 to 34 days, first crab in 45 to 49 days, but this can be prolonged; megalopal stage reached in ~37 days, first crab in ~52 days, with the atypical sixth zoeal stage). Stone crabs may live as long as 7 years (FWRI, 2006). Andryszak and Gore (1981) reported in their study of larv al development of the deep water xanthid Micropanope sculptipes that it had four larval stages, like t he majority of xanthid species. As a result, species with fewer larval stages would indicate that they spend less time as part of the plankton.

Spiny lobsters ( Panulirus argus ) spawn in late spring and early summer on the outer reefs and offshore ( Table 4.17 ). The larvae (phyllosoma) live offshore for 6 to 12 months and are solitary, observing a diurnal vertical migration pattern (occurring shallo wer at night and deeper during the day). Post-larval (puerulus) recruitment occurs year-round, and the larvae move from the open ocean towards nearshore, moving in the surface 1 m of water. Movement is ai ded by wind-driven surface currents and/or flood tides at night following the new moon. When they are >1 5 to 20 mm carapace length (CL), they move into crevices and nocturnally feed on invertebrates, mainly molluscs (depth <5 m). As growth increases to 20 to 50 mm CL (7 to 10 months), they move to deeper water (depths of 10 to 20 m), 50 to 80 mm CL (1 year) (depths of 100 to 500 m), and >80 mm CL (1 5+ years) (depths of 500 to 1,000 m). Typically, 1-year-old subadults are found in 3- to 10-m water depths. Most crustacean larvae are subsequently returned to estuarine and nearshore areas by tides and wind-driven cu rrents, which may cause some unexpected upwelling events (Pitts and Smith, 1997; Pitts, 1999).

Along the east Florida coast, some crustaceans spawn year-round, while others do so only seasonally ( Tables 4.8 and 4.17 ). Notable year -round spawners are Pachycheles monifer, P. transversus, and Synalpheus fritzmuelleri. Ovigerous females of P. dianae and S. walkerii reported by Nelson and Demetriades (1992) were present year-round, so th ey probably spawn year-round as well. In contrast, Menippe nodifrons

, Pilumnus spp., Pagurus sp., Petrolisthes galathinus

, and Alpheus spp

. appear to spawn seasonally during the spring or summer time period.

Reed et al. (1982) suggested that recruitment of Oculina coral reefs in shallow areas (6 m depth) along the east Florida coast may occur from two directions, the surrounding algae-sponge habitat and adjacent sabellariid worm reefs. The authors provided examples for species colonization that may occur from inshore to offshore, and vice versa: 1) Pachycheles monilifer , which was dominant on sabellariid worm reefs, was also restricted to 6-m depth on oculinid reefs; 2) Megalobrachium soriatum , which was the second most common species on oculinid reefs and rare on worm reef according to Gore et al. (1978), was found at all oculinid stations (6-, 27-, 42-, and 80-m depths); 3) the following species were observed

on both sabellariid worm reef and 6-m oculin id reef but not at the deeper stations: Synalpheus

fritzmuelleri

, Pilum nus dasypodus

, Petrolisthes galathinus

, Alpheus formosus , and Epialtus sp.; and finally, but considered least likely, 4) colonization c ould occur as the larvae settle out of the plankton from offshore at 80-m depths moving shoreward, and the pers everance of various species would be controlled by selective elimination as a resu lt of periodic cold water upwelling events. Recruitment of dominant isopods associated with worm rock occurred in most months (Nelson and Demetriades, 1992).Section 2 4-29 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow HardbottomTable 4.17. Summary of the life history characteristics of the ontogenetic stages of spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) (Adapted from:http://bio.fsu.edu/~herrnlab/Life_History_Table.pdf).Life StagePhyllosomaPuerulusAlgal phasePost-algalJuvenileAdultSize1 to 10 mm 5 to 6 mm CL 6 to 20 mm CL 20 to 50 mm CL 50 to 80 mm CL >80 mm CLDuration6 to 9 months 1 to 2 weeks 2 to3 months7 to 10 months 1 year15+ yearsColorTransparent body Transparent bodyCryptic: bandeddisruptiveSemi-cryptic: spotted Semi-cryptic: spotted Semi-cryptic: spottedHabitat OpenoceanOffshore movinginshoreMacroalgae, seagrassBays, hardbottomsponges, holesBays, hardbottompatch reefs, amidseagrass holesOffshore reefsFoodSoft-bodiedzooplanktonNon-feeding stageGeneralist: invertebrates(especially molluscs)Same Same SameForage grounds Upper 200 m Non-feeding stage Macroalgal patches Grass beds, rocks Grass beds, rocks Grass beds, reefsHome range UnknownNot available <5 m10 to 20 m100 to 500 m 500 to 1,000 mPredators PelagicfishesCoastal fishes,jellyfishesSmall fishes, crabs,octopusFishes, crabs, octopusOctopus, large fishes,stingrays, manLarge Goliath grouper,sharks, manAntipredation strategy Sparseness Fast-moving, crypsis Camoflage, shelter useShelter use,aggregationShelter use,aggregation,cooperative defenseLarge size, shelter useaggregation,cooperative defenseActivityDiurnal verticalmigrationNocturnalNocturnal only Nocturnal onlyNocturnal crepuscular(diurnal at massmigration)Nocturnal crepuscular(diurnal at massmigration andreproductive seasonSociality Solitary Solitary Solitary,asocialGregarious (forage asindividuals)Gregarious (forage asindividuals)Semi-gregarious(forage as individuals)CL = Carapace length.Section 2 4-30 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.3.2 Gastropods and Other Molluscs

4.3.2.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

There is a high diversity and abundance of gastr opods on hardbottoms along the east Florida coast. Reed and Mikkelsen (1987) studied the molluscan comm unity associated with the scleractinian coral

Oculina varicosa at four sites of varying depth. They identified 230 species-level taxa, including 155 gastropods, 68 bivalves, 1 scaphopod, 5 polyplacophorans, and 1 cephalopod ( Table 4.4 and Appendix B

, Table B.2 ). The observed taxa ut ilized four modes of existence: motile species (47%), symbiotic (32%), epilithic (18%), and endolithic (3%) . There may be as many as 40 gastropod species

that are rare and endemic to small nearshore reache s of Florida coastline (U SFWS, 1999), specifically beach-rock outcrops along Palm Beac h and Martin Counties (Petuch, 1988).

Gastropods are likely very important in food webs al ong the east Florida coast. They are important as predators of various invertebrates and small fishes (McGraw and Gunter, 1972, Carriker, 1978; Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987; Watanabe and Young, 2006). Wa tanabe and Young (2006) indicated that the main predators of P. lapidosa were the dog whelk Stramonita haemastoma and decapod crustaceans (Gore et al., 1978), although they also observed low numbers of the non-shell-boring gastropods Pollina tinca (Buccinidae) and Leucozonia nassa (Fasciolaridae) feeding on P. lapidosa. Stramonita haemostoma traditionally feeds on oysters, however, at Walton Rocks had developed a much longer proboscis to feed on worms than conspecifics that fed on bivalves (Watanabe, 2002). Boring gastropods feed by scraping the surface of shells and also by applying secretions that dissolve the shell, or by injecting toxins (McGraw and Gunter, 1972; Carriker, 1978). Additionally, gastropods can be a major prey item for other

invertebrates such as the stone crab Menippe mercenaria occasionally observed on worm reefs, portunid crabs (Butler, 1985; Richardson and Brown, 1992), spiny lobsters ( Panulirus argus ) (Sultzman, 1990), blue crabs (FWRI, 2007c), and other snails such as Pisania tincta (Buccinidae) (Watanabe, 2002), as well as fishes (puffers, sheepshead, black sea bass, por gies, yellowtail snapper) (South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute and Duke University Marine Laboratory, 1982; Cummings, 1994; USFWS, 1999).

4.3.2.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

There is not much information on how gastropod diversity and abundance change with latitude and depth along the east Florida coast. Petuch (1987) reported that Cerithium lindae

, Nerita lindae , and Modulus papei and two unnamed periwinkle species were associated with these nearshore habitats. Furthermore, it is possible to find Thias rustica

, T. deltoidea , and T. floridana (also Purpura patula ) along the east Florida coast. Two species of prickly winkle ( Tectarius antonii and T. nodulosus ), as well as the abundant

Cenchrus muricatus

, occur along Florida. Aplysia increases in abundance and number of species moving south towards the Keys. Nerites and Siphonarias are tropical, an d few are encountered that survive the cold winter months. Petuch (1987) mentions endemic intertidal species, including several new species of small gastropods, some of which include Nerita lindae and Cerithium lindae from Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties and some yet unnamed findings. In the rocky intertidal zone along Palm Beach County, it is possible to find Nerita peleronta

, N. versicolor

, N. tesselata

, N. fulgurans , and N. lindae (E. Petuch, Florida Atlantic University, pers. comm.).

Applied Biology, Inc. (1979) monitored a sabellariid wo rm reef at the St. Lucie Power Plant (April 1976 to April 1979) and found 17 gastropod and 5 bivalve spec ies associated with the reef. The four most common species of gastropods included Anachis avara

, Mitrella argus

, Anachis floridana , and Barleeia

tincta ( Table 4.2 ). As with other fauna observed, the numbe r of gastropod species collected was highest in July when water temperatures peaked and reef size was largest (July 1977). Numbers and diversity of organisms were lowest from October to January when water temperatures were decreasing and reef size was the smallest. McCarthy (unpublished) noted the presence of Stramonita haemostoma (dog whelk)

and Aplysia dactylomela (spotted sea hare) in observations at Bathtub Reef (2002 to 2003).

S. haemostoma was significantly abundant all over the wo rm reef, but only during fall and early winter.Section 2 4-31 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Reed and Mikkelsen (1987) conducted studies of mo lluscs on the east Florida coast associated with

Oculina variosa coral reef at four sites and depths (inner shelf 6 m, mid-shelf 27 m, outer shelf 42 m, and shelf edge 80 m). At the 6-m depth, Parviturboides interruptus was the most abundant species, representing 54% of specimens. In comparison, all other stations were dominated by at least five species that made up 50% of the specimens observed. Chione grus was dominant at 27 m (13%), Lithophaga

bisculata was dominant at 42 m (16%), and Costoanachis lafresnayi was dominant at 80 m (24%) ( Figure 4.18 ).

Figure 4.18. Species composition at each of four Oculina stations (From: Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987). Numbers in parentheses are percent of total individuals for each station.

In addition, three distinct species groupings were determined. One species group common to the 6-m depth was dominated by Parviturboides interruptus

, Diplothyra smithii

, Rissoina bouryi , and two species

of Odostomia . The second, at 80-m depth, was dominated by Metaxia rugulosa

, Calliostoma roseolum

, and two other species of Odostomia . Finally, a third species grouping consisting of species common throughout the shelf was dominated by Lithophaga bisculata

, Calliostoma sparsa , and Fargoa bushiana

. The density of organisms at 6 m was significantly similar to that at the 80 m depth station but was significantly higher than that encountered at the 42 m depth ( Table 4.4 ). Seasonal variations in community composition were minimal at 80 m because of high similarity of within-station fauna and lowSection 2 4-32 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### fluctuations in ordination scores. Also, at depths greater than 6 m, seasonal fluctuations in numbers of individuals and species were not as pronounced. At 6-m sites, these parameters varied according to temperature cycles, with a peak in numbers and species in June. This was due primarily to high densities

of Parviturboides interruptus

, Chione grus , and Diplothyra smithii and influx of rare species, respectively.

Cold water upwelling and cooler average temperat ures may have accounted for more eurythermic tropical, temperate, and boreal species at the shelf edge (80 m) than on the inner shelf (6 m). Regarding trophic structure, species assemblages at 80 m were distinct from those at 6 m, in that specimens collected from the 6-m depth were predominantly he rbivores and detritovores. Those collected from 80-m depths were predominantly carnivorous species. Habitat structure at t he 80-m depth consisted of more dead and living coral than the other sites and, as a result, provided more space for epilithic molluscs and epizooiic (sponges, tunicates, and hydroids) and ca rnivorous species to colonize. At the 6-m depth, more boring endolithic species of molluscs prevailed, with densities five times that compared to the 42- or 80-m stations ( Appendix B

, Table B.3 ).

4.3.2.3 Reproduction and Life History

Gastropod species sexually reproduce but can be di oecious or hermaphroditic. Fertilization can be internal or external, producing offspring that develop di rectly or indirectly. In direct development, offspring often are encapsulated in egg cases that are attached to the seafloor. Juveniles hatch out of the cases as miniature adults. In indirect development, a tr ochophore (only archaeogastropods such as limpets, nerites, and turbans) or veliger larva (most other gastr opods) is produced. In the latter case, veligers can be lecithotrophic and short-lived (days to weeks) in the plankton or planktotrophic and long-lived (up to 3 months) in the plankton.

Little is known about seasonal spawning and recruitment patterns of gastropods along the Florida coast. These larvae are among the most abundant nearshore zo oplankton, but their occurrence is likely to be both local and brief, and information about larval ecol ogy is limited (Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987; Johnson and Allen, 2005). However, community persistence seems to be influenced strongly by physical factors such as the stability and sustainability of adequate subs trate, reduced wave energy, and/or severe storm surf (Woodley et al., 1981; Sousa, 1984), as well as adequate food supply. Also, habitat that is not prone to severe desiccation like intertidal habitats (as a result of low tides and high temperature maxima) can support more snails (Newell, 1979). In additi on, Watanabe (2002) noted that low abundance of encrusting flora and fauna, presence of filamentou s algae, and smooth worm reef mounds (dead worm reef) tended to increase stress and mortality to intertidal invertebrates, leading to a reduction in food supply for the snails. The physical environment is mark edly different between inner and outer shelf reefs. At the 6-m depth, there were more waves, sedimentat ion, light, and constant temperature conditions that favored algal growth and herbivores. At a depth of 80 m, temperature fluctuations are as much as 13°C in 48 hours, and Reed and Mikkelsen (1987) sp eculated that recruitment of molluscan larvae from species pools outside of the Oculina reefs may be greater at the shelf edge reefs than at the inner shelf because they are closer to the warm Florida Curren t, which supplies tropical species of larvae from the south year-round. Moreover, outer shelf reefs are clos e to the deep, cool counter-current from the north that flows through the Florida Straits. The latter su pplies temperate and boreal species to the shelf edge

reefs. Larval distribution is probably greatly affected by numerou s upwelling events caused by wind stress and tides (Pitts and Smith, 1997; Pitts, 1999; McCarthy, 2005).

Watanabe (2002) conducted studies on the dog whelk Stramonita haemostoma occurring at Marineland (rock boulders) and Bathtub Reef (worm rock) along the east Florida coast (1999 to 2001). Usually, spawning occurs from April to August (Butler, 1985). However, this can be affected by diet. Watanabe (2002) found that snails feeding on their normal di et of oysters reproduced earlier (May to August) compared to those feeding on P. lapidosa (July to September). Data from Marineland indicated that

S. haem ostoma is capable of producing from 226 to 270 egg capsules per snail, and as many as one to
six clutches over the summer, with some individual s spawning multiple times. Egg capsules contain larvae that hatch into veligers after 10 to 27 day s and then become part of the plankton for several months (Scheltema, 1971; Dobberteen and Pechenik, 1987). Each egg capsule can contain from 836 to 1,766 larvae (Watanabe, 2002). In general, the life span of these gastropods is about 5 years, withSection 2 4-33 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### seasonally-induced settlement throughout their range (Gunter, 1979; Butler, 1985). However, the production of snails was lower on the Bathtub Reef worm reef (life span of 1 year) compared to rock boulders at Marineland (significantly longer). The co mmunity of snails on worm rock consisted of a new single cohort generated each year (recruited September to October) that completely died off by July to August, after 9 to 10 months. In addition, P. lapidosa recruitment and demise occurred in the same time frame (September to October and July to August, respectively) (McCarthy, 2001; Watanabe, 2002). No reproduction occurred on the worm rock at Ba thtub Reef; however, at Marineland, the snail community was more persistent, with multiple cohorts (new recruits arriving from October to November) and reproduction and survival through fall and summer. Watanabe (2002) postulated that this may be due to availability of food throughout the year and the ability to survive harsh summer heat and weather conditions. Consequently, this was reflected in snail density, which was lower at Bathtub Reef (0.6 to 5.5 individuals/m 2 

### /yr), representing a single cohort each year, compared to other locals with multiple cohorts per year, i.e., Marineland (16.1 ± 19.8 individuals/m 2 

### /yr), Louisiana oyster beds (2.9 to 37.9 individuals/m 2 

### /yr) (Brown and Richardson, 1987), and Gulf (2.7 to 27 individuals/m 2 

### /yr) (Butler, 1985).

In southeast Florida, Cummings (1994) studied the recruitment and community development associated with a newly constructed artificial reef (April 1988 to July 1990) off Boca Raton, Florida. A total of 64 invertebrate species was recorded during the stud y, of which three were gastropod species and four were bivalve species ( Table 4.3 ). Invertebrate species diversity was significantly higher in July 1990 than in December 1988 to January 1989. However, the seasonality of invertebr ates was not confirmed because of a temporary and unexpected burial of four of six sampling locations. Generally, the invertebrate community never seemed to reac h an equilibrium and stayed in an early stage of development because of freque nt physical disturbance.

4.3.3 Echinoderms

4.3.3.1 Diversity and Trophic Function

Echinoderms can be abundant along some east Flori da coast NHBs. While echinoids are often most visible out on reefs, there are a number of holothuria ns, ophiuroids, asteroids, and crinoids that can be encountered along the coast ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). Overall, most echinoderms do not provide significant shelter for higher numbers of species. So me exceptions to this may occur with small animals such as shrimp, mysids, copepods, porcellanid crabs, brittle stars, blennies, gobies, and pearlfish (Randall et al., 1964: Schoppe, 1991). However, some echinoderm species may be very important herbivores that influence abundance or diversity of macr oalgae that in turn affects the amount of either 1) shelter or food for other species, and/or 2) space availability for recruitment of other sessile organisms such as stony corals (see Duffy and Hay, 2001 for a re view). In the more northern sections of east
Florida NHB, the echinoid Echinometra lucunter is very abundant and significantly reduces biomass of macroalgae and cyanobacteria (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville , FL, pers. observ.). Such removal of macroalgae and cyanobacteria may be important in providing recruitment opportunities

for sessile invertebrate such as Oculina and Siderastrea . Recent observations of removal of macroalgae by urchins were documented during monitoring of the Indian River County Ambersand mitigation reef. Observations indicated an 8-fold increase in urchin populations on the mitigation artificial reef between 2006 and 2008 where removal of macroalgae and mud cover increased recruitment opportunities for the

scleractinian Oculina (Miller and Kosmynin, 2008; Coastal Eco- Group Inc., 2009). Other echinoderms such as some holothurians and brittle stars are deposit- feeders that may convert detrital food sources into macroorgansim biomass that is available to higher trophic levels and enhance sediment resuspension and nutrient exchange with the water column (Bertness, 2007).

Echinoderms can be important as a food sources to key species in a number of marine ecosystem food webs (see Duffy and Hay, 2001 for a review) but hav e not been studied in this sense along the east Florida coast. It is very likely that sea urchins ar e important prey components of food webs as there are several predators found along the coast that are re latively abundant and known to prey on sea urchins. Examples of these predators include spiny lobsters, sp ider crabs, grunts, jacks, wrasses, triggerfishes, and birds (Abbott et al., 1974; Hendler, 1977).Section 2 4-34 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.3.3.2 Latitudinal and Cross-shelf Distribution

How abundance and diversity of echinoderms change along east Florida coast NHBs is unclear for most of this group. The clearest patterns occur with echinoids, with a much higher biomass of echinoids occurring towards the northern half of the east Florid a reef tract. To the north of Palm Beach County, nearshore reefs can have fairly high de nsities of the rock-boring urchins Echinometra lucunter ( Figure 4.19 ) and Arbacia punctulata . McCarthy (2001 and unpublished data) observed densities varying between 2 and 16 urchins/m 2 

### at several locations off Vero Beach. Approximately

80% were E. lucunter , 19% A. punctulata , and 1% the pencil urchin Eucidaris tribuloides

. Echinometra lucunter also is found in tidal pools in the intertidal and in the very shallow subtidal zone along the entire coast. In this region, there may be an increase in abundance of A. punctulata with depth. This may be explained by the colder temperature tolerances of this species,

as it is found much further north on the eastern coast than any of the other species (Hendler et al., 1995). The echinoid Tripneustes

ventricosus also has been recorded as far north as Indian River County but generally occurs in low densities (C. Miller, Coastal Eco-Gr oup, Inc., and D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University,
Jacksonville, FL , pers. observ

. ). Progressing southward, in Martin County, several other species may be encountered on NHBs. These include

Diadema antillarum

, Lytechinus variegatus , and T. ventricosus . Of these three species, D. antillarum is more normally encountered on coral reefs and hardbottoms, whereas the other two are more common on seagrass habitats. D. antillarum have been observed throughout the east Florida coast but appear to be

most abundant at the St. Lucie R eef (SFCREMP, 2007). Generally, s outh of Martin County, echinoid biomass decreases significantly, with only occasional observations of E. tribuloides and even rarer

encounters with D. antillarum (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.).

Very little is known about the holothurians along the Florida coast. The most conspicuous sea

cucumbers are holothuroids. Holothuria grisea is

most abundant in the intertidal and shallow subtidal zones along the east Florida coast ( Figure 4.20 ) (Hendler et al., 1995). It can be found within cracks

and crevices within worm rock or associated hardbottoms. It appears to occur in highest densities from Martin County and northward, although this has not been experimentally confirmed. The diversity of holothurians probably increases with depth. J. Beal (FWC, pers. comm.)

identified five holothurians at the St. Lucie Reef in Martin County.

Very little is known about the brittle stars and crinoids that occur along the east coast. There are probably a number of brittle star species that may be in high abundance along the coast, as they are somewhat easily encountered upon dissection of worm rock (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville Univ ersity, Jacksonville, FL, pers. obser v.). They also can be observed Figure 4.19. The rock-boring urchin Echinometra

lucunter on shallow hardbottom habitat in Vero Beach, Florida.

Photo by D. McCarthy



### .

Figure 4.20. The sea cucumber Holothuria grisea

on shallow hardbottom habitat in Ambersands Beach, Florida.

Photo by D. McCarthy



### .Section 2 4-35 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### in the deeper subtidal hardbottoms from Palm Beach County southward. In c ontrast, crinoids probably

are not that abundant but have been encountered in some areas. For instance, the crinoids Davidaster rubiginosa and Nemaster grandis have been identified in a depth of ~6 m at the St. Lucie Reef (J. Beal, FWC, pers. comm.).

4.3.3.3 Reproduction and Life History

All of the echinoderm species found along east Florida reproduce sexually. Most are slow egg producers (Eckelbarger, 1994) that seasonally spawn. Wh ile some do brood their young and have crawl-away larvae, many broadcast spawn, where fertilization results in either plank totrophic or lecithotrophic larvae. Larval time spent in the plankton varies from a few hours to months. After settlement and metamorphosis, many probably live for several years (Ruppert et al., 2004).

While there is some information available on seas onal spawning patterns of echinoderms along the east Florida coast, there is little known on their dispersal and recruitment patterns. E. lucunter probably spawns during late summ er/early fall, whereas A. punctulata spawns during late spring/early summer (Serafy, 1979). L. variegatus has two spawning periods---one during late spring and a second smaller peak in fall (McCarthy and Young, 2002). D. antillarum spawning periods appear somewhat variable throughout the Caribbean populations studied but often hav e a well-defined lunar rhythm (Hendler et al., 1995). At Walton Rocks, Fort Pierce, the sea cucumber H. grisea occurs in low abundance during winter, when the animals may migrate offshore (Hendler et al., 1995). While most echinoderms found in our area produce planktonic larvae that may spend several mont hs in the plankton before settling and recruiting to hardbottoms, there may be high dispersal and connectivity among echinoderm populations in the Florida-Caribbean region. There is no substantial res earch that has documented recruitment patterns for any echinoderm species along the east Florida coast. However, studies of echinoderms generally reveal recruitment to be low, if not sporadic, during the course of a single year.

4.4 SUMMARY

4.4.1 Diversity

There is a high diversity and abundance of sessile an d motile invertebrate species associated with NHBs along the east Florida coast ( Appendix B

, Table B.1 ). A total of 534 species of invertebrates has been identified along the east Florida coast, and there are like ly to be more. The diversity of sessile species is greatest for cnidarians (~21%), bryozoans (~29%), and sponges (~19%). At generally lower diversities, tunicates, polychaetes, and bivalves are commonly encountered in these habitats as well. In contrast, some sessile taxonomic groups may not be represented with as high a diversity but can occur in very high biomass. A premier example is the sabellariid polychaete P. lapidosa , which can be very abundant along the more mid- to northern sections of the Florida coast.

The most diverse and generally abundant motile invertebrates are arthropo ds (~47%) and polychaetes (~28%). There are over 100 species of crustaceans that are extremely abundant, especially on

worm reef-dominated hardbottoms. These include cr abs, stomatopods, shrimp, lobsters, isopods, and amphipods. There are over 87 reported polychaete species that are likely to be very abundant, although

more research is needed to confirm this. There are al so fairly high numbers of gastropods, flat worms,
ribbon worms, and echinoderms on these habitats. While less diverse, to the north along the east Florida coast there is generally high biomass of echinoderms such as the sea urchins E. lucunter and A. punctulata. While these are some generally-observed trends, some groups such as brittle stars are probably fairly diverse and abundant but have not been extensively studied.

4.4.2 Trophic Patterns and Functional Groups

The two premier ecological functional roles of invertebrates along the east Florida coast are as 1) shelter-enhancing organisms that increase local di versity of fishes and invertebrates, and 2) either predators or prey in local food webs. Generally, the highest community biomasses along the east Florida coast occur in hardbottom areas with higher abundances of sessile invertebrate species (some may beSection 2 4-36 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### considered foundational or keystone contributors to t he community) that enhance local shelter. Along the Florida coast, important shelter-enhancing taxonomic groups are hard and soft corals, sponges, tunicates, molluscs, barnacles, and polychaetes (i.e., P. lapidosa ), however, their importance in this function varies dramatically with depth and latitude. In terms of contribution to local food webs, important taxonomic groups are sponges, crabs, shrimp, pol ychaetes, echinoderms, crabs, and shrimp. Again, their importance in this function likely va ries dramatically with depth and latitude.

The range of trophic roles is very different between se ssile and motile east Florida invertebrates. Most sessile invertebrates are passive consumers, eit her being suspension feeders (sponges, sabellariid polychaetes, barnacles, tunicates) or opportunist ic carnivores (hard and soft corals, bryozoans, hydrozoans). All of these invertebrates may be fed on by motile invertebrates or fishes, but there is little

information available on their role in this function. In contrast, there is more tr ophic diversity among motile invertebrates. Most decapods and gastropods are active carnivores, although some are omnivores, herbivores, and suspension feeders. Echinoids such as E. lucunter

, A. punctulata , and D. antillarum are important herbivores in the areas where they occur. These motile groups are also likely to be fed on by motile invertebrates or fishes, but there is little in formation available on their role in this function.

4.4.3 Latitudinal and Cr oss-shelf Distribution

On a large scale, the diversity and abundance of invertebrates along the east Florida coast varies dramatically based on latitude, depth, and, often, season. Variability in these community and population measures can be very high because of changes in feat ures of the substrate itself, local hydrodynamics, and other biotic and abiotic factors. However, wh ile there is not a good quantitative comparison of community assemblages along the coast, there are some general trends that appear to occur.

Sessile invertebrate communities change noticeably with latitude and depth along the Florida coast. In
intertidal hardbottoms to the north, dominant invert ebrates are bryozoans, sabellariid polychaetes, sea anemones, and tunicates, although they generally do not occur in high biomass. In the more mid-sections of the east Florida coast, there is generally an increase in abundance of P. lapidosa

, both intertidally and subtidally to approximately 4 m depth. Throughout tidal pools in these intertidal areas,

Siderastrea spp., two species of zoanthids, and several species of solitary anemones can be

encountered. Within the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, the most conspicuous sponge is the rock-boring sponge Pione (formerly Cliona ) lampa . In the more northern counties (Brevard and Indian River Counties) that have subtidal hardbo ttom, sponges, two species of gorgonians ( Leptogorgia virgulata

and Leptogorgia hebes ), and one species of telestacean ( Carijoa ( Telesto ) riisei ) can be encountered. In this area, the most significant hard corals are Siderastrea spp. and the Oculina species. The latter two species become fairly abundant in excess of 6 m (Reed et al., 1982; D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.). However, there ar e occasional occurrences of Cladocora arbuscula and

grou ped polyps of Phyllangia americana and Astrangia spp. (Brooke and Young, 2005; CSA International, Inc., 2008; Coastal Eco-Group Inc., 2008, 2009). Progressing southward along the coast, the diversity and abundance of anthozoans, particularly scleractini ans, increases on subtidal hardbottoms (SFCREMP, 2007; J. Beal, FWC, pers. comm.). Within Martin County, the St. Lucie Inlet Reef appears to be the northernmost extent of several of the reef-building cora ls that are important biodiv ersity contributors within the Caribbean region. Within the 5 to 8 m depth rang e, mean percent cover of sponges is highly variable in samples, ranging between 0.14% and 10.29% (S FCREMP, 2007). In Broward County, a large percentage of the coral community in the excess of 3 to 7 m depth range is composed of the scleractinian Acropora cervicornis (Moyer et al., 2003; Vargas-Angel et al., 2003; SFCREMP, 2007).

4.4.4 Reproduction and Life History

A wide range of reproductive strategies is seen among the invertebrates encountered along the east Florida coast NHB. Most sessile organisms can repro duce asexually and sexually, while the majority of motile invertebrates are sexual reproducers. Both sessile and motile invertebrates tend to be short-lived (particularly in intertidal and very shallow subtidal waters), with a capability to reproduce continuously or semi-continuously.Section 2 4-37 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Almost all sessile invertebrates can reproduce asexua lly and sexually, although the relative importance of these modes in maintaining the population is often unclear. Sponges, cnidarians, bryozoans, and colonial tunicates are all important shelter-enhancing Florida invertebrates that have these reproductive capabilities. In so me cases, such as with the scleractinian A. cervicornis , it is known that they primarily proliferate via asexual reproduction. Asexual re production may be very important for a number of shelter-enhancing invertebrate species in the shallower hardbottoms, where there is generally high

disturbance. Noticeable sessile invertebrates that re produce primarily via sexual reproduction are mostly polychaetes, bivalves, gastropods, and echinoderm s. In particular, the reef-building polychaete P. lapidosa reproduces entirely via sexual reproduction, as do the vermetid gastropods in the genus

Petaloconchus.

Sexually reproducing sessile and motile invertebrates generally have seasonal spawning patterns, although many have the capability to spawn throughou t most of the year. Seasonal spawning peaks often occur during the spring or summer time period for most of the invertebrates along the coast. However, the ability to continuously spawn is perceived to be an adaptation to take advantage of space made available by natural disturban ces (McCarthy, 2001). For most sessile invertebrates, spawning is external and results in planktonic larvae, although th ere are instances of brooding and crawl-away young.

4.4.5 Dispersal and Connectivity

There is generally very little known regarding dispersal and connectivity of invertebrates along the east Florida coast. Considering known general reproduc tive capabilities of the various taxonomic groups, there is likely to be fairly low dispersal for many species, particularly the sessile ones. Tunicates, hydrozoans, some gastropods, amphipods, and iso pods are likely to have t he most limited dispersal capability. Sponges and hard and soft corals may be at an intermediate level of dispersal, while crustaceans, polychaetes, echinoderms, and bivalves generally should have higher dispersal and connectivity. However, several studies sugge st that even some of these groups (i.e., Phragmatopoma, Acropora ) may have fairly limited dispersal.

4.4.6 Recruitment and Cross-shelf Habitat Use

There is very limited information on seasonal recruitm ent patterns for invertebrates along the east Florida coast. There is essentially no information on cross- shelf habitat use. McCarthy (2001) studied the recruitment of sessile organisms in the intertidal and subtidal (3 to 4 m) zones at Boynton Beach, Florida from June 1997 to January 2000. He reported 23 species of sessile organisms recruiting to his settlement plates, with P. lapidosa being most commonly encountered ( Table 4.1 ). The recruitment rate of some 7 to 11 species m 2 

### /day occurred in both zones and was highest in summer and early fall. Although recruitment generally occurred at both depth zones, it was higher in the subtidal zone compared to the intertidal zone. McCarthy (2001) suggested that while high numbers of species may recruit into these habitats, most probably do not survive to adulthood. This may be due to a combination of factors. First, there was likely high mortality of recruits that could not tolerate physical factors that were very frequent, such as sand scouring and smothering. Second, high rates of P. lapidosa recruitment were observed to limit growth of sessile organisms, often growing over them. Finally, he also suggested that predation may not be as important in explaining recruit mortality in these two zones as the two previously-mentioned reasons. Overall, he suggested that worm reef-dominated hardbottoms appear to go through predictable patterns of annual change. These changes include high recruitment in early autumn through winter, rapid reef growth (approximate ly 0.5 cm/day) resulting in maximum structure in spring and summer, and decay by early autumn ( Figure 4.9 ). When these data are integrated with those of Lindeman (1997a), they reveal important links bet ween the seasonal cycle of sabellariid reef expansion and degradation and the occupation of those r eefs by juvenile and adult organisms.Section 2 4-38 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 4.4.7 Economic and Recreational Value

Invertebrates significantly contri bute to the economic and recreational value of NHBs along the east

Florida coast. Sessile invertebrates such as P. lapidosa and a number of coral and sponge species provide high aesthetic value to NHBs as well as important shelter to many invertebrate and fish species of commercial and recreational value. Many of these s pecies simply would not exist were it not for these foundational invertebrate species. Invertebrates also contribute to nearshore va lue via their significant role in the food web that again likely supports many commercially- and recreationally-important fish species. Finally, some invertebrates (e.g., spiny lobster) add value to the habitat as they are of direct commercial and recreational interest to the public.

4.4.8 The Importance of Hardbottom to Invertebrates

The presence of hardbottom is absolutely necessary for most of the invertebr ates encountered along the

east Florida coast. Sessile invertebrates such as co rals, sponges, polychaetes, bryozoans, and tunicates are simply not found in neighboring sand bottom areas. Of these species, the lack of community contributors such as sabellariids and corals would likely result in the absence of most motile invertebrate and many fish species.Section 2 5-1 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

# C h a p t e r 5

F i s h A s s e m b l a g e s

5.1 INTRODUCTION

NHB fish assemblages of mainland Florida can vary in diversity and total abundances. Very little journal literature exists on these assemblage s. However, enough information is available from the gray literature

and the scant research literature to allow fundamental evaluation of these often discrete, narrow habitat patches along east Florida that aggregate shallow reef organisms.

Gilmore (1977) and Gilmore et al. (1981) discussed surf zone reefs and offshore reefs in terms of fishes and habitat features. In surf zone reefs in depths of 0 to 2 m, 105 fish species were documented. A total of 192 fish species from NHB areas within a depth range of 0 to 4 m was compiled from new data or the literature (Lindeman, 1997a). The number has in creased (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004) but has not been comprehensively revisited. Desp ite approximately three decades of monitoring of the juvenile-dominated and sometimes speciose NHB habitat ( Figure 5.1 ), total species richness estimation is constrained by the paucity of published fish research in this habitat area. In addition, the existing fish species numbers may be low due to an abse nce of research on the di minutive, cryptic fish fauna, including gobiids, blenniids, and labrisomids. Ackerman and Bellwood (2000) and Robertson and Smith-Vaniz (2008) identified severa l problems regarding the underestimation of species diversity when cryptic ichthyofauna are chronically undersampled.

Figure 5.1. Multispecies school of juvenile fi shes including four species and three families (grunts, wrasses, and damselfishes) in association with nearshore hardbottom structure.

Photo by D. Snyder.Section 2 5-2 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Of the species recorded from NHB, the great ma jority of abundance and frequency records involve approximately 20 to 30 species; however, assemblage composition varies latitudinally and seasonally. The species are largely within approximately 10 familie s and include labrids, pomacentrids, haemulids, and carangids as prominent components (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004)

. To deal with this diversity, we identified four focal group cate gories based on groupings that share substantial habitat use and trophic attributes ( Table 5.1 ):

Demersal Carnivores: A diverse array of demersal piscivores, invertivores, and planktivores including grunts (Haemulidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), wrasses ( Labridae), squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), drums (Sciaenidae), cardinalfishes (Apogonidae), sweep ers (Pempheridae), and over 15 other families, including some blenniids and labrisomids. Grunts ty pically are the most abundant and diverse fish fauna on NHB structure of mainland east Florida, with 11 species recorded and over 80% of total individual

abundance in available studies. Since new larval recruits feed on plankton, grunt early life stages can also be abundant planktivores on subsets of the shallo w reef. This group also includes notable nearshore fishery species as adults or during developmental periods before maturation.

Cryptic Hardbottom Residents: The gobies, blennies, sand stargazers, clingfishes, and related forms (Blenniidae, Labrisomidae, Clinidae, Chaenopsidae, Dactyloscopidae, Gobiesocidae) include at least 25 species recorded from shallow hardbottom. Almost a ll of the cryptic, attached fishes have specialized morphological adaptations for NHB residency and a structure-attached life history after settlement. Though they typically perch on hardbottom, these spec ies are trophically diverse. The gobiids and some blennies are herbivorous, but notable and mobile carnivores, including several families of eels, are also within this group ( Table 5.1 ).

Coastal Pelagics: Includes transient, water-column dwelling pi scivores such as jacks, mackerels (often in large schools), and sharks (Carangidae, Scombrid ae, and Carcharhinidae) and small, schooling bait species including the planktivorous herring, anchov ies, scads, and mullets (Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Carangidae, and Mugilidae, respectively), approximately 25 species in total.

Herbivores and Omnivores: Includes approximately 20 species of damselfishes (Pomacentridae), parrotfishes (Scaridae), doctorfishes (Acanthuridae ), chubs (Kyphosidae), porgies (Sparidae), and some species of filefishes (Monacanthidae) and spiny puffers (Diodontidae). The site-associated blennies (Blenniidae) are also herbivorous. Several of these species occur in very high abundance and may be of trophic significance in the uptake and energeti c conversion of macroalgae and other items.

Table 5.1. Focal groups of fishes based on trophic and habitat use attributes.

Groups Approximate Number of Families and Species Example Families and Genera

Demersal

carnivores 30 families; 10 species Haemulidae (grunts, Haemulon and Anisotremus ); Labridae (wrasses, Halichoeres ); Sciaenidae (drums, Pareques and

Bairdiella ); Lutjanidae (snappers, Lutjanus ) Cryptic

hardbottom

residents 8 families; 30 species Gobiidae (gobies, Coryphopterus ); Labrisomidae (scaled blennies,

Labrisomus ); Apogonidae (cardinalfishes, Apogon ); Muraenidae (moray eels, Muraena )

Coastal pelagics 10 families; 25 species Carangidae (jacks, Caranx ); Clupeidae (herring, Harengula ); Scombridae (mackerels, Scomberomorus maculatus )

Herbivores 7 families; 20 species Pomacentridae (damselfishes, Stegastes and Abudefduf ); Kyphosidae (chubs, Kyphosus ); Scaridae (parrotfishes, Sparisoma ); Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes, Acanthurus ); Sparidae (porgies; Diplodus )



### For each focal group, prominent biological featur es are summarized with emphasis on spawning activities, shelter use characteristics, and trophic fu nctioning in association with NHB, IHB, and shallow OHB. We do not refer to these as guilds; these grou ps are too diffuse and are used solely to simplify the taxonomic and ecological complexity of the fishes ex amined. Guilds often attempt to separate speciesSection 2 5-3 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### groups according to only one primary functional category (e.g., feeding guilds or habitat associations [Appeldoorn and Lindeman, 1985; Elliot et al., 2007]), and we are not that restrictive in this case.

An additional fish assemblage occurring largely over ad jacent sand plain habitats, the surf zone fish assemblage, can co-occur with NHB and IHB struct ure and organisms, e.g., via trans-habitat feeding migrations. There is a small literature on the specie s characteristics of shallow sand plain and surf zone habitats of east Florida, including Gilmore et al. ( 1981), Peters and Nelson (1987), and Gorecki (2007). There are significant differences in the taxonomic and ecological species compositions of adjacent surf zone and NHB fish assemblages in east Florida. For example, different sciaenid faunas (croakers and drums) occur between NHB and sand plain areas (Gilmore et al., 1981). For the family Sciaenidae, the most ecologically and economically significant species associate with sand habitats more often than reef habitats. There are also important species and pr ocess interactions between surf zone and NHB fishes (e.g., in some sites, Spanish mackerel and pompano are often caught by fishers over NHB or near the edges of NHB and sand). Ontogenetic foraging events , particularly from NHB habitats over adjacent sand plain habitats, may become important as cohort s of hundreds of surviving and maturing juveniles of grunt, wrasse, and other species migrate increasingly aw ay from the NHB to seek more prey and habitats associated with mature stages (Randall, 1967; Parri sh, 1989), often but not always in deeper water.

Based on the demonstrated or potential value of NHB areas as both nurseries and spawning sites for economically valuable species, these habitats were determined to support highly important ecological functions; a primary NMFS criterion for EFH-HAPC designation under the federal Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996). The mandate of the Sustainable Fish eries Act to conserve significant habitats drove substantial convergences between fishery management and habitat management in some areas of the country (SAFMC, 1998; Fluharty, 2000; Lindeman et al., 2000). The Federal EFH-HAPC designation has administrative significance for all species of haemulids, lutjanids, and serranids managed under the SAFMC Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan; this includes over 40 species, many of which are significant components of Florida’s approximately $6 billion per annum

recreational salt water fisheries. At least 15 of these managed species occur on NHB, typically as juveniles or earlier life stages.

5.2 DEMERSAL CARNIVORES

5.2.1 Focal Families and Species

This category includes demersal invertivores, piscivores, and planktivores that are not

site-attached to hardbottom structure ( Table 5.1 ). Many families are represented in NHB habitats, with some species also having significant roles on deeper and structurally different hardbottom habitats after emigrating following settlement and maturation ( Figure 5.2 ). Families include the grunts (Haemulidae, 11 species recorded from NHB), wrasses (Labridae, 11 species), snappers (Lutjanidae, 6 species), squirrelfishes (Holocentridae, 3 species), drums (Sciaenidae, 6 species), groupers (Serranidae, 9 species), threadfins (Polydactylidae, 2 species), sweepers (Pempheridae, 1 species), lizardfishes (Synodontidae, 3 species), and over 15 other

families. Figure 5.2. Early juvenile lane snapper ( Lutjanus synagris ) associating with algal-rock-sand interface, 3 to 4 m, John U. Lloyd State Park, Broward County, Florida. Note rapid metamorphosis compared to haemulids.

Photo by L. Jordan



### .Section 2 5-4 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Over 80% of the individual abundances in the NHB fish assemblage in both northern Palm Beach County and central Broward County were r epresented by species of grunts and margates (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004). Diverse and widely distributed, the 18 species of the genera Haemulon and

Anisotremus (Haemulidae, Percoidei) comprise one of the most ecologically and economically important groups of reef fishes in the West ern Atlantic (15 and 3 species, respectively) due to their high abundance and trophic importance as predators and prey across di verse cross-shelf habitats. There are 12 haemulid genera in the Western Hemisphere, and these taxa oc cupy a spectrum of habitats from riverine to deep reef (Lindeman and Toxey, 2003). Many of the reef species typically use nearshore habitats during settlement and early juvenile matura tion periods and utilize offshore r eefs during older life stages.

Some demersal carnivore species are significant in recreational or commercial fisheries. Their species-specific usage patterns of NHB may range from 1) habitat use primarily during early life stages, to 2) adults using NHB or adjacent areas for feeding. These species include snappers and groupers in the former category and pompano ( Trachinotus carolinus ) and sheepshead ( Archosargus probatocephalus ) in the latter group. Commonly under-recognized as NH B users, some of the most sought-after inshore gamefish species are caught on NHB habitats throug hout several NHB areas of the project region, including tarpon ( Megalops atlanticus ), red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus ), snook ( Centropomus undecimalis ), and sea trout ( Cynoscion spp.), the majority capable of feeding on both fishes and invertebrates. Larger demersal carnivores of shallow hardbottom include sharks ( Figure 5.3 ).

One demersal carnivore, striped croaker ( Bairdiella sanctaeluciae ), is listed as a species of special concern by state and federal agencies because its distribution in

U.S. waters is limited to eastern Florida. This species occurs over NHB and OHB from Jupiter to Melbourne, Florida and can be locally abundant on NHB (Gilmore and Snelson, 1992) and shallow water artificial reefs (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006; Coastal Eco-Group Inc., 2009).

5.2.2 Shelter Use

5.2.2.1 Spawning Sites and Larval Transport

Spawning in many fish families that use shallow hardbo ttom is still poorly known. Some of the species in this category spawn in aggregations, but many sp awn in pairs (Thresher, 1984). Snapper species (Lutjanidae) form spawning aggregations in sout hern Florida and Cuba that can potentially generate propagules that settle in eastern mainland Florida (Lindeman et al., 2000; Paris et al., 2005), but they do not spawn directly on shallow hardbottom. On the ot her end of the life history scale are families that greatly limit their dispersal such as jawfishes (Opistognathidae), which brood eggs in their mouths. Predicatively understanding local and meso-scale physical oceanography as well as behavioral processes will be critical to addressing such dispersal issues further. Whether the species has life history traits that predispose it to wide dispersal or local re tention, larval transport is also poorly known in terms of empirical studies. Some useful information is ava ilable from studies focusing on receipt in east Florida of upstream snapper larvae from known snapper s pawning aggregations in Cuba. Coupled biophysical modeling for several demersal snapper species found on east Florida NHB suggests advection rates of lutjanid larvae (lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris , and gray snapper, L. griseus ) from Cuba to east Florida are relatively low (Paris et al., 2005). Figure 5.3. Resting nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum

, a generalized feeder on bottom invertebrates, 3 m depth, Palm Beach, Florida.

Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 2 5-5 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Despite their abundance, information on reproduction in grunts is limited (García-Cagide et al., 2001). Fishermen have reported potential spawning aggregati ons, but this information requires validation (Claro and Lindeman, 2003), and spawning has not been observed in any Western Atlantic haemulids. There is little evidence that any species of Haemulon would spawn in association with NHB. Black margate could be an exception in deeper NHB or IHB areas, especia lly near channels, since this species can grow to maturity in very shallow water and there is indirect evidence that it may spawn in nearshore channels. The potential spawning of other haemulid species in deeper IHB or shallow OHB is not precluded, especially given the unusual early life history details discussed below.

Considerable evidence su ggests that larvae of Haemulon and Anisotremus do not commonly leave insular or continental shelves, may associate with the bottom in transient manners within a week after hatching, and undergo a slow epibenthic metamorphosis that extends well past settlement (Lindeman et al., 2001). The evidence includes post-settlement planktivory (Helfman et al., 1982), a slow morphological metamorphosis away from larval characteristics (translucence, incomplete fin development) that continues for weeks post-settlem ent (Lindeman, 1986; Lindeman and Richards, 2005),

and the absence of haemulid larvae from offshore ic hthyoplankton surveys (Richards, 1984; Sponaugle et al., 2003). This suggests that larval dispersal may be constrained by behaviors and positioning that appear to not favor advection by flow fields.

Retention on the shelf in shallow water coupled with such early settlement, possibly involving multiple bottom-association events prior to conventional “settl ement,” is a relatively uncommon early life history strategy (Lindeman et al., 2001). The typical settl ement pattern for many percoid and other important groups of families involves dire ct settlement with a rapid metamorphosis (one to several days)

. Grunts, a basal-intermediate percoid family, have a slower a nd different demersal metamorphosis process from many other specie s and families.

5.2.2.2 Settlement and Early Associations with Shelter

Settlement and early habitat use of the species in the demersal carnivore group are not well known; however, general patterns that characterize certain ta xa provide some insight. Most groupers are very secretive at settlement and are rarely observed during visual surveys. Another characteristic of groupers and several other species including snappers is settlem ent on inshore seagrass meadows. Individuals of these species will, as they grow, migrate to NHB habitats. Lane snapper and mahogany snapper ( Lutjanus mahogoni ) are two lutjanid species that appear to settle directly on NHB (lane snapper also will settle in seagrass meadows).

Grunts and margates ( Haemulon and Anisotremus species) settle by 7 to 10 mm standard length (SL) at the least. These are small settlement sizes compared to most reef fish families, and grunts possess an unusual epibenthic larval stage as part of a highl y extended metamorphosis that proceeds well past settlement ( Figure 5.4 ). Understanding of the dense newly settl ed schools that grunts can form has been complicated by a sequence of two post-settlement pi gment patterns (newly settled and early juvenile) that most species possess during an extended epibenthic metamorphosis (Lindeman, 1986; Lindeman et al., 2001) ( Figure 5.5 ).

Few speciose genera of Western Atlantic reef fish es show such extended morphological and ecological metamorphoses at settlement. The newly settled pattern between 7 and 15 mm SL shows transitional attributes of both larval and early juvenile pigmentation and continuation of planktivory into post-settlement stages ( Figure 5.4 ); delayed metamorphoses are not pres ent in larval recruits of many other percoid fishes. Grunts are among the most common settlers in many differing shallow coastal habitats (McFarland et al., 1985; Shulman and Ogden, 1987; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004) and are the most common settler on shallow hardbottom of east mainland Florida of all the families in the huge perciform suborder Percoidei. Evolutionar ily, the only families that are similarly abundant are in the very different suborder Labroidei (e.g., damselfishes and wrasses) (Kaufman and Liem, 1982).Section 2 5-6 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Figure 5.4. Newly settled grunts in the transitional epibenthic planktivore stage (approximately 12 to 20 mm standard length) after settlement and before adoption of demersal feeding (by the late early juvenile stage), Palm B each, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .

Figure 5.5. Early life stages of primary reef-associa ting genera of haemulids and lutjanids of the western Atlantic. Life stage designations and size ranges (mm standard length) based on morphological and ecological information fr om Starck, 1970; Lindeman, 1986; Richards, 1994; and Lindeman and Richards, 2005. Representative figures are of newly settled and early juvenile stages of smallmouth grunt ( Haemulon chrysargyreum ) and mutton snapper ( Lutjanus analis ).Section 2 5-7 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Sweepers ( Pempheris schomburgkii ) and drums ( Pareques spp., Bairdiella sanctaeluciae , and

Odontoscion dentex ), like the grunts and margates, settle in groups near vertical ledges where they are readily observed. The common wrasses such as slippery dick, puddingwife ( Halichoeres radiatus ), and clown wrasse may exhibit a very different pattern of settlement: presumably settling and burying themselves in sand bottom, remaining there for at least 5 days before emerging to take up residence on the reef (Victor, 1991).

5.2.2.3 Juvenile and Adult Habitat Use

On hardbottom from 0 to 7 m deep (mean depth of 3.9 m) in Broward County, 84% of all fishes and over 90% of all juvenile fishes surveyed were species of Haemulon (Baron et al., 2004). This study covered areas with wide eastward hardbottom strata crossing among NHB, IHB, and shallow OHB depth zones, in contrast to many NHB areas in northern Palm Beach County. Four of the top six most abundant species in transects were grunts, along with H. bivittatus and Stegastes variabilis (Baron et al., 2004). The most abundant grunt was “Unidentified Haemulon sp.” with over 8,000 individuals, with a mean total length (TL)

of 2.6 cm for transect counts.

In surveys at Coral Cove County Park and Carlin Park in northern Palm Beach County, and Ocean Ridge in southern Palm Beach County, 7 of the top 12 mo st abundant species from the three sites were grunts and margates, in order: sailors choice ( Haemulon parra ), black margate ( Anisotremus surinamensis ), porkfish ( A. virginicus ), tomtate ( H. aurolineatum ), unidentified Haemulon spp., French grunt ( H. flavolineatum ), and smallmouth grunt ( H. chrysargyreum ). In all species, the most abundant life stages were early juvenile and juvenile stages, newl y settled stages, and adults. Adult abundances were significantly different from pooled early li fe history stages in all species tested ( Figure 5.6 ).

Figure 5.6. Comparisons of abundances of life hist ory stages at two sites in northern Palm Beach County (From: Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). Boxes note comparisons between adult stages and all sub-adult stages pooled. A: All s pecies pooled. B: Only grunts (species of

Haemulon and Anisotremus ) pooled. NS = newly settled; EJ = early juvenile; J = juvenile; PE = pooled early stages.Section 2 5-8 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 5.2.3 Trophic Patterns

There are no fish feeding studies from shallow har dbottom habitats in the project region. The most

detailed examination of food habits of Caribbean reef and coastal pelagic fishes is Randall (1967). His study areas were in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. These are insular systems with both similarities and differences in the seascapes that th ese animals move across compared to east Florida. The grunts and margates of the genera Haemulon and Anisotremus show a wide array of invertivory. Some species are planktivorous as adults ( H. striatum ), others are very specialized for feeding on hard-shelled invertebrates ( H. macrostomum ), while the majority of species are relatively generalized feeders on both soft- and hard-invertebrate prey, often from either softbottom or hardbottom environments (Randall, 1967; Sierra, 2001).

Most species are primarily demersal invertivores, as well as some important demersal piscivores and planktivores. Over 50 species of NHB fishes consume invertebrates as a primary dietary component. Eleven species of wrasse illustrate a pattern similar to grunts and other families: invertebrates from many diverse taxa are consumed by differing congeners with low to high levels of specialization within the genus. For example, many wrasse species (genus Halichoeres ) feed on “shelled invertebrates” in the northeast Caribbean, though specific dietary compos itions can vary (Randall, 1967; Randall’s data tabulated by taxa in Sierra, 2001). The dominant l abrid in both the Jupiter and Fort Lauderdale studies was the slippery dick ( H. bivittatus ). This species feeds on crabs, urchins, annelids, and gastropods (Randall, 1967) and is an opportunistic feeder. Other labrids, such as the clown wrasse, H. maculipinna

, feed primarily on soft annelids (Randall, 1967). As m entioned elsewhere, these comparative patterns are largely predictive without empirical feedi ng information from the project region.

Additional invertivores on NHB habitats include sn ake eels (Ophichthidae), one species of moray eel (chain moray, Echidna catenata ), and squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), which feed on crabs, shrimp, and molluscs. Smaller serranids ( Serranus spp.) and reef drums including Pareques lanceolatus and P. punctatus prey upon shrimp, echinoids, and annelids. Several species of goatfishes (Mullidae) and some labrisomid species prey upon swimming crabs and ophiuroids. Juvenile stages of most snapper species feed on crabs and shrimp and with growth swit ch to fishes. The boxfishes (Ostraciidae) broadly feed on sponges, sipunculids, tunicates, and crusta ceans. Spiny puffers (Diodontidae) feed on gastropods, echinoids, and crabs (Randall, 1967).

Piscivorous families on NHB include the lizardfishe s (Synodontidae) and older groupers and snappers. Most species of moray eels are also piscivores, but these are considered under cryptic hardbottom residents. These species consume a high diversity and abundance of smaller prey fishes above or adjacent to reef structure. Comm on prey items include juvenile sta ges of grunts, wrasses, and herring (Randall, 1967).

Demersal planktivory by older juveniles and adults is present among cardinalfishes (Apogonidae), sweepers (Pempheridae), and species such as yellowt ail snapper. The apogonids reside in crevices during the day and feed on the larvae of shrimp, crabs, and annelids in the northeast Caribbean (Randall, 1967). Based also on the work of Randall (1967) and Gladfelter (1979), the copper sweeper ( Pempheris schomburgkii ) also resides near crevices and overhangs where it feeds on annelid larvae and other plankton. Large schools of newly settled individual s are commonly observed. They appear to possess an extended epibenthic larval period similar to grunts . Less common yellowtail snapper feed on a variety of plankton in the water column above the surface of hardbottom structure.

5.2.4 Developmental Patterns and Cross-shelf Habitat Use

The great diversity of families and species of demersal invertivore groups and the absence of habitat use

literature from east Florida NHB constrains broad su mmary, as does geographic variation. However, the available information suggests over 30 species of ha emulids, labrids, lutjanids, sciaenids, serranids, and others typically redistribute across the shelf during d evelopment, often into deeper waters.Section 2 5-9 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### The degree to which maturing juveniles on discrete NHB patches can successfully emigrate to deeper

water reef structure is unexamined. Based on the data and evidence from other studies, some species assumedly should attempt to emigrate away at a ce rtain age. We assume this process is gradual and involves exploratory behavior that may be associated with nocturnal sand plain feeding migrations in some species (e.g., snappers, grunts). The advent of small telemetric tags us ed in conjunction with a coordinated set of cross-shelf receiving stations could help resolve this issue for some species.

5.2.5 Latitudinal Distribution

Information from multiple sites is limited and comparisons are complicated by variable relative abundances of NHB, IHB, and connected OHB habitats among the counties ( Table 2.1 ), the very different geomorphologies and oceanographic conditions latit udinally, and by the differing depths examined in the existing studies.

Some differences among ichthyofaunal assemblage s are seemingly present between the southern and

northern areas of mainland southeast and east-central Florida in terms of the most abundant species. Baron et al. (2004) found one black margate, Anisotremus surinamensis, out of >72,000 individuals from 164 families recorded in Fort Lauderdale in the summer of 2001. To the north, Lindeman and Snyder (1999) found 636 A. surinamensis out of 10,491 individuals censused, 6% of the overall assemblage.

A. surinamensis in the Jupiter area ranked seventh in individual abundance of over 80 species recorded.

In the same studies, Baron et al. (2004) found 43 sailors choice, Haemulon parra, out of 72,000 fish

recorded ; most were older juveniles with mean lengths between 15 and 17.5 cm. A total of 58,000 grunts ranging from 1 to 7 cm TL (mean of approximately 2.6 cm), >80% of the total number of species recorded, was identified as Haemulon sp. in the Broward research. H. parra in the Jupiter area ranked first in abundance of all species. Lindeman and Snyder (1999) found 1,326 H. parra individuals, primarily early juvenile and newly settled stages, 13% of all fishes recorded in 2 years. There is a similar difference between south and north abundances in the hairy blenny, Labrisomus nuchipinnis ; a dominant cryptic hardbottom resident species of the Jupiter area and sites to the north (Gilmore, 1977; Gilmore et al., 1981; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999) that was unco mmon in Broward surveys (Baron et al., 2004).

Given the high number of specie s and families and the substantial physiographi c transitions between Miami and Cape Canaveral, there have to be some s pecies whose distribution and abundance patterns consistently differ between the northern and southern areas of the project region. Absent further empirical information from more equivalent depth setti ngs, the early comparisons of latitudinal variation

above will remain somewhat tenuous until more studies become available.

5.3 CRYPTIC HARDBOTTOM RESIDENTS

5.3.1 Focal Families and Species

Shelter association and trophic diversity are high among cryptic hardbottom resident species. For example, five primary cryptic resident families (gobiid s, labrisomids, clinids, blenniids, and chaenopsids) and their over 25 phylogenetically similar species show feeding patterns that vary from herbivory (all gobiids and some common blennies) to invertivory (cardinalfishes, squirrelfishes) and piscivory (eels).

5.3.2 Shelter Use

5.3.2.1 Spawning and Larval Transport

Little is known of the spawning and larval biology of cryptic hardbottom resident species in east Florida. The available evidence suggests that most cryptic NHB-associated species can build nests. Compared to some other nest layers at these depths (e.g., damse lfishes), the nests of most cryptic residents of NHB-IHB habitats are typically more cryptic, often un der overhangs or deep in small holes and crevices. The molly miller ( Scartella cristata ) will deposit eggs in empty barnacle shells or abandoned worm holes (Breder and Rosen, 1966). Direct assessment of spaw ning biology is limited. Indirect evidence includesSection 2 5-10 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### color patterns associated only with courtship and spawning ( Figure 5.7 ). Gobies, blennies, and associated cryptic resident taxa tend nests of eggs.

There is considerable information from some congeneric gobiids and blenniids from the Pacific coast of North America (or confamilials). In these species, often residing in tidepools and rocky subtidal and intertidal habitats, the available evidence suggests larval dispersal patterns are freq uently limited (Gunderson et al., 2008). Larval retention is a primary early life history characteristic of many rocky intertidal species (Marliave, 1986; Strathmann et al., 2002; Broitman et al., 2008; Gunderson et al., 2008).

5.3.2.2 Settlement and Early Habitat

Associations

Early development and settlement is also poorly known in the cryptic residents of shallow hardbottom of east Florida. Breitburg (1991) documented features of demersal schooling before settlement in the naked goby. Developmental studies of many species detail how the pectoral fins are modified and fused into ventral, cup-like structures that allow direct attachment to NHB structure in high wave energy environments. These structures are formed by the time t he age at which settlement can occur is reached.

5.3.2.3 Juvenile and Adult Habitat Use

Cryptic resident species do not appear to migrate further offshore with development, displaying no cross-shelf ontogenetic migrations. They are life-long residents of the NHB, IHB, or shallow OHB structure on which they settle, and display feeding modes from herbivory to probable piscivory ( Figure 5.8 ). Nine species of gobies and

blennies were recorded as “restricted to the nearshore” in Baron et al. (2004): four labrisomid species, four gobiids, and one blenniid species; this number represents 45% of all the species they

estimated to be nearshore-restricted.

Hairy blenny was the largest and most abundant cryptic hardbottom resident in the Jupiter surveys,

with 806 individuals recorded out of 10,491 individuals censused, 8% of the overall individual total (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). Hairy blenny ranked fifth in individual abundance of ov er 80 species recorded. Hairy blenny was also the most abundant cryptic hardbottom species on Ambersand mitigation reef survey s, Indian River County, representing 30% of the individuals censused on artifi cial reefs and natural nearshore hardbottom over 3 years of annual monitoring (Coa stal Eco-Group Inc., 2009). Baron et al. (2004) recorded no hairy blennies on transect and point-counts in Fort Lauderdale, though the species was recorded in qualitative roving diver surveys. They found the bridled goby, Coryphopterus glaucofraenum, and the rosy blenny, Malacoctenus macropus , at 2 to 5 cm size ranges to be the most abundant cryptic resident species.

Other cryptic taxa observed on NHB include moray eels (Muranenidae), snake eels (Ophichthidae), soapfishes (Serranidae), and cardinalfishes (Apog onidae). Juveniles and adults from these groups are Figure 5.7. Spawning coloration in male hairy blenny ( Labrisomus nuchipinnis ), with female in background, 2 m depth, Pecks Lake Reef, southern Martin County, Florida. Photo by

T. Gibson.



### Figure 5.8. A cryptic hardbottom resident, spotted moray eel ( Gymnothorax moringa ), depth 2 m, MacArthur Beach State Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 2 5-11 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### generally solitary, dwelling under ledges and in crevices provided by NHB, IHB, or OHB. All of these taxa are predatory and generally leave their hiding places to forage at night. Baron et al. (2004) recorded spotted moray, purplemouth moray, and goldentail mo ray offshore Fort Lauderdale; spotted snake eel also occurred within their study area. In Jupiter, Lindeman and Snyder (1999) observed all of these eels except the purplemouth moray, but also reported the chain moray ( Echidna catenata ).

Cardinalfishes (apogonids) were more diverse and abundant in visual samples recorded in Fort Lauderdale (Baron et al., 2004) in data from 0 to 7 m. Two genera and six species were reported, with twospot cardinalfish ( Apogon pseudomaculatus ) and flamefish ( Apogon maculatus ) represented by the

most individuals. Cardinalfishes were less commonl y seen in Jupiter censuses; flamefish was the only species recorded. Greater soapfish ( Rypticus saponaceous ) is the most commonly observed soapfish in the region and was infrequently seen by Baron et al. (2004) and Lindeman and Snyder (1999).

5.3.3 Trophic Patterns

Highly diverse feeding patterns exist among cryptic hard bottom fish species. Herbivory, invertivory, planktivory, and piscivory are all known for the small fi shes that attach to NHB structure, often out of human sight. Randall (1967) found that “all gobiids” and two common blenny species ( Scartella cristata

and Parablennius marmoreus ) fed primarily on algae in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

Labrisomids such as the very common hairy blenny, a generalized invertivore in Randall (1967), probably can also feed upon late stage larvae of some reef-assoc iated fishes such as gr unts (R.G. Gilmore, Jr., Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Science, Inc., Vero Beac h, FL, pers. comm.). First-ever food habit studies on these and other NHB species would be of great val ue, as knowledge of the trophic structure of this east Florida fish subassemblage is depauperate.

5.3.4 Latitudinal Distribution

As was the case for grunts, there is a contrast between the southern and northern sites surveyed in Baron et al. (2004) and Lindeman and Snyder (1999). No hairy blennies were recorded on transect and point-counts in Fort Lauderdale, though the species was recorded in qualitative roving diver surveys (Baron et al., 2004). In contrast, hairy blenny was the largest and most abundant cryptic hardbottom resident in the Jupiter surveys to the north, wi th 806 individuals recorded out of 10,491 individuals censused, 8% of the overall individual total (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). Hairy blenny ranked fifth in individual abundance of over 80 species recorded.

By definition, the visual methods used by Baron et al. (2004) and Lindeman and Snyder (1999) will not fully account for all cryptic species present in the ar ea. Accordingly, other cryptic taxa were seldom

observed and therefore cont ribute little information to support analyses of latitudinal patterns. Nevertheless, some basic patterns may be described for the soapfishes and cardinalfishes. For soapfishes it appears that the wh itespotted soapfish is more commo n north of Broward County and the greater soapfish is more prevalent from Palm B each County southward. As mentioned above, the

cardinalfishes were much more diverse in the sout hern area samples, and observations on OHB indicate that cardinalfish species drop out with increasing lati tude to about Jupiter; from this area north, twospot cardinalfish and flamefish are the most commonly-observed species on OHB and NHB.

5.4 COASTAL PELAGICS

5.4.1 Focal Families and Species

Though typically transient, coastal pelagic fish specie s can interact with NHB in manners that have local trophic impacts. Their roles as both predators and prey can be seasonally significant. We therefore consider coastal pelagic species as a transient subcomponent of the la rger NHB-associated ichthyofauna. The species in the coastal pelagi c functional group are water-column dwelling, often schooling fishes that are typically moving. These species usually do not reside on NHB for extended periods of time.Section 2 5-12 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### The diverse taxa of the coastal pelagic group includes

• small, schooling herring, anchovies, scads, mullets, and halfbeaks (Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Carangidae, Mugilidae, and Hemiramphidae, respective ly), prey to many NHB resident and transient species;

• large, schooling mackerels, bluefish, and pom panos (Scombridae, Pomatomidae, and Carangidae, respectively) in cooler months, predators on many nearshore fishes and prey to anglers; and

• the largest apex marine predators of coastal Flori da, several shark species such as nurse, requiem, and hammerhead (Ginglymostomatidae, Carcharhini dae, and Sphyrnidae, respectively), some of which are commonly solitary, whereas others can fo rm schools. Many of these species, including blacktip ( Carcharhinus limbatus ), blacknose ( C. acronotus ), bull ( C. leucas ), spinner ( C. brevipinna ), tiger ( Galeocerdo cuvier ), and lemon ( Negaprion brevirostris ) sharks, are federally managed (NMFS, 1999).

5.4.2 Shelter Use

5.4.2.1 Spawning and Larval Transport

Some of these species have little or no association with particular bottom types while spawning. Structural components of the water column, such as temperature gradients, may have more of a habitat influence than bottom type (Kingsford et al., 2002). Several clupeids have been observed with developing or ripe ovaries in nearsh ore waters of Palm Beach County, particularly Spanish sardine ( Sardinella aurita ), false pilchard ( Harengula clupeola ), and scaled sardine ( H. jaguana ) (D. Snyder, CSA International, Inc., pers observ.). Bigeye scad ( Selar crumenophthalmus ) also has been collected with ripe ovaries in nearshore waters adjacent to NHB (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1992).

Although there is little direct evidence of coastal pel agic species spawning over or adjacent to NHB, when depth preferences and behavior are considered, it could occur in some species. For example, Atlantic thread herring ( Opisthonema oglinum ), Spanish sardine, and round scad ( Decapterus punctatus ) would probably spawn in deeper offshore waters, whereas the false pilchard, scaled sardine, and redear sardine ( Harengula humeralis ) are more likely to spawn in shallow habitats such as NHB (e.g., Martinez and Houde, 1975). Another group that spawns in sha llow coastal waters and has been observed over NHB, IHB, and OHB off Palm Beach (the northern limit of its distributional range) are the halfbeaks ( Hemiramphus brasiliensis ) and ( H. balao ) (Berkeley and Houde, 1978; McBride et al., 2003).

5.4.2.2 Settlement and Earl y Habitat Associations

Many coastal pelagic species do not appear to poss ess a discrete, bottom-associated settlement event associated with NHB. However, schools of late-st age larvae of some herring and jack species can occur nearshore. Some herring and anchovy species, including species such as the thread herring ( Opisthonema oglinum ) and Anchoa spp., can form schools of elongate, translucent late-stage larvae in

the water-column above NHB and IHB structure.

Jacks are a diverse family with many representativ es associating with NHB, IHB and OHB. Early life stages of many of the jacks, including Caranx spp., bigeye scad, and round scad, associate with drifting

flotsam and Sargassum and utilize nearshore envir onments, including NHB, fo llowing strong easterly winds. Others, particularly Atlantic bumper, associat e with large jellyfishes and are similarly transported from the open ocean into NHB areas.

As mention ed above, most jacks species, including scads ( Selar crumenophthalmus ; Decapterus spp.), crevalles ( Caranx spp.), amberjacks ( Seriola spp.), Atlantic bumper, and rainbow runner ( Elagatis bipinnulata ), settle and associate with flotsam and Sargassum . Individuals from another group of jacks, consisting of Florida pompano ( Trachinotus carolinus ), permit ( T. falcatus ), and palometa ( T. goodei ), settle in very shallow coastal water (Fields, 1962) and will opportunistically shelter in tide pools formed by NHB, such as in Brevard County NHB (Cont inental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2005c).Section 2 5-13 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Baron et al. (2004) observed seven species from five genera of jacks. In thei r surveys of NHB and OHB, the bar jack ( Caranx ruber ) accounted for most of the observations and ranged from 3 to 25 cm TL. To the north, yellow jack ( C. bartholomaei ) was the most commonly observed carangid on NHB (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999).

5.4.2.3 Juvenile and Adult Habitat Use

Clupeid and engraulid records from all survey methods in the Fort Lauderdale and Jupiter study areas are absent or very low, respectively. Only Spanish sardine and unidentified engraulids were recorded from Jupiter NHB transects (scaled sardine was also f ound over open sand, near NHB). Based on roving diver surveys and on-water boat observations, the diversit y and abundance of highly motile, surface-associated herring and anchovy species in association with NHB is underestimated by transect and point-count methods. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (1992) collected juvenile bigeye scad in mixed schools of juvenile clupeids associated with NHB in Jupiter and Palm Beach.

Transect counts of jacks (carangids ) at Fort Lauderdale sites found bar jack, yellow jack, and blue runner ( Caranx crysos ) at minimum sizes of 3, 7, and 7 cm TL, respectively. Mean lengths surveyed for these species were 8, 15, and 14 cm SL, respectively (Bar on et al., 2004). Many of these individuals were juvenile stages, with bar jack in association with shallow hardbottom structure at post-settlement stages. Juveniles of these species were also recorded in the Jupiter surveys where divers observed post-settlement behavior in yellow jack at 3 cm. Sc hools of thousands of scombrids and bluefish are

often fished in IHB but have not been censused.

An exceptional example of a coastal pelagic schoolin g species in association with shallow hardbottom exists at the Peck’s Lake reef syst em in southern Martin County, where a semi-continuous gradient of worm-rock encrusted hardbottom extends from NHB through OHB depths and is used by a massive seasonal adult aggregation of Spanish mackerel ( Scomberomorus maculatus ). This aggregation has been highly predictable in the late fall through winter (O ctober to late March) and heavily fished for well

over a decade. There is little direct informati on on what the aggregating mechanism is; perhaps it is feeding. There is no evidence of spawning in the Pe ck’s Lake system, with spawning probably occurring later in spring and further offshore. The area is characterized by expansive NHB and IHB reefs, some with high (2 m) and convoluted relief, many with substantial P. lapidosa habitat structure, most of it the remaining framework of dead colonies. Unlike many NHB systems, hardbottom extends to approximately 8 m depths offshore.

Before the highly touted and exploited Spanish mackerel fishery at Peck's Lake reef, there was a massive seasonal aggregation of mackerel and bluefish inside the Lake Worth Lagoon, 45 km to the south. These fish entered Lake Worth usually during March and Apr il, presumably on their way back north following the regular southerly migration triggered by the passage of winter cold fronts. This subpopulation was fished regularly by hundreds of small commercial hook-and-line fishermen, maintained consistency for years, and was considered a limitless resource. The aggregat ion began to diminish by the mid-1970’s with the growth of the commercial fishery, and also because of water quality degradation in the lagoon from increased dredge-and-fill activity in the lake and the expansion of the Port of Palm Beach (T. Twyford, West Palm Beach Fishing Club, West Palm Beach, FL, pers. comm.). When the fishery evolved beyond hook-and-line fishers, big net boats with roller rigs, spotter planes, and run-around gill nets heavily fished mackerel up and down the east Florida coast. The fishery begin to rebound through tighter gear restrictions and quota limitations, then the net ban in 1995 further boosted mackerel recovery. It appears that since the net ban, Spanish mackerel have been able to stay in the Pecks Lake area for long

stretches with less disturbance from the current heavy hook-and-line fishing than from the run-around

nets used before the net ban. Run- around nets also took other coasta l pelagic species that associate with NHB, including ladyfish ( Elops saurus ) and jack crevalle ( Caranx hippos ).

There are reports of a sizable agg regation of small Gulf kingfish ( Menticirrhus littoralis ) near Jap Rock in Boca Raton that occurs February/March; it is not as large as the Peck’s Lake aggregation and receives less fishing pressure (T. Gibson, Outdoor Life Maga zine, pers. comm.). King mackerel ( Scomberomorus

cavalla ) form similar aggregations at various sites furt her out on the shelf and shelf edge, as do the littleSection 2 5-14 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### tunny ( Euthynnus alletteratus ), but aggregations of neither species maintain as long as the Spanish mackerel do at Pecks Lake (D. Snyder, CSA Internat ional, Inc., pers. comm.). There are a few other predictable Spanish mackerel aggregat ions that also occur seasonally in Florida Bay and on Florida's southwest coast in the winter (T. Twyford, West Palm Beach Fishing Club, West Palm Beach, FL, pers. comm.).

Each year in the fall, adult and subadult striped mullet ( Mugil cephalus ) mass migrate along the coast of southeastern Florida. Although not directly associat ing with NHB, the large schools of mullet pass near and over hardbottom areas during their migration.

Adult bull sharks were observed at Coral Cove in northern Palm Beach County during July 2004 (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2005b). Large sc hools of blacktip and spinner sharks migrate along the east Florida coast during winter and early spring (D . Snyder, CSA International , Inc., pers. observ.). Groups of individuals from larger schools will associ ate with NHB temporarily (for a few days or weeks) during the migration. Large individuals of great hammerhead ( Sphyrna mokkaran ) are occasionally observed following the migrating blacktips (D. Sn yder, CSA International, Inc., pers. observ.).

5.4.3 Trophic Patterns

Many coastal pelagic species are pr ominent piscivores, typically trans ient but capable of substantial localized predation in deeper NHB through OHB habit ats. Prominent piscivorous species include the jacks, mackerels, cobia, and requiem sharks. Many piscivorous species also can feed on invertebrates. In Randall (1967), approximately half of the species of jacks fed on bottom macroinvertebrates, including shrimp, cephalopods, and crabs, while the gut contents of the other half of t he species indicated they were piscivorous. The most abundant species in both the Jupiter and Fort Lauderdale surveys were the yellow jack and bar jack, species recorded to feed on invertebrates and fishes and only fishes, respectively.

The piscivorous coastal pelagic subgroup includes some gamefish species that are preyed upon by seasonal aggregations of marine mammals (dolphins) that gather in coastal NHB through OHB environments in the fall and winter to feed on Spanish mackerel, bluefish, and cobia. These same species are also targeted by recr eational anglers. The mackerel and bluefish are on the seasonal southern boundary of their fall migration to warmer wa ter prior to late spring spawning off east Florida. Sharks are also routinely fished and sighted by angl ers and surfers in deeper NHB and OHB areas; these species include nurse, blacktip, spinner, bull, lemon, sandbar ( C. plumbeus ), sharpnose ( Rhizoprionodon

terraenovae ), and tiger sharks.

Primary plantivorous coastal pelagic species include the Spanish sardine, round scad, bigeye scad, and thread herring ( Opisthonema oglinum ). In the northeast Caribbean, thread herring fed on copepods and also the planktonic stages of annelid s and crustaceans (Randall, 1967).

5.4.4 Latitudinal Distribution

Observations of coastal pelagic species utilizing NHB in Fort Lauderdale (Baron et al., 2004) and Jupiter (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999) were limited to the jacks previously discussed. Differences in the numbers and kinds of coastal pelagic species between these two st udies are difficult to explain because the visual sampling methods used do not adequately sample such highly migratory species.

Some of the most prominent and seasonally perio dic coastal pelagic species are warm temperate migrants from cooler, Carolinian waters of the Sout h Atlantic Bight. Examples of seasonal transient schoolers that range from the shelf edge through NHB structure include bluefish ( Pomatomus saltatrix ) and Spanish mackerel. These species can probably be significant predators on OHB through deeper NHB habitats in the northern study area when large schools migrate off east-central Florida in fall months. However, these species typically do not go as far south as the NHB in Broward and Miami-Dade
Counties.Section 2 5-15 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 5.5 HERBIVORES AND OMNIVORES

5.5.1 Focal Families and Species

Many schooling herbivores common to Caribbean reefs occur in association with NHB and include the surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), parrotfi shes (Scaridae), porgies (Sparidae), and chubs (Kyphosidae); most of these families are represented largely by juvenile life stages, but also frequently occur as adults (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004) . Non-schooling herbivores on NHB include the damselfishes (five species), filefishes (Monacanthi dae), spiny puffers (Diodontidae), presumably all gobiids, and several blenniids (Randall, 1967).

Herbivorous fishes may be defined as browsers on macroscopic algae and grazers on turfing algae (e.g., Choat et al., 2002; Floeter et al., 2005). In NH B environments, herbivores represented few species, but these can be locally abundant. Brow sers are represented by the chubs ( Kyphosus sectatrix and

K. incisor ) and adult porgies ( Diplodus spp.). The chubs will also feed in surface waters on drifting Sargassum algae. Grazers are represented by surgeonfishes ( Acanthurus spp.) and parrotfishes (primarily S. rubripinne ).

There can be substantial ontogenetic variation in feed ing among some species. For example, the silver porgy ( Diplodus argenteus ), a very abundant sparid on NHB, is probably omnivorous like its closely related congener, the spottail pinfish, D. holbrooki. The latter species was found to eat both algae and macroinvertebrates by Hay and Sutherland (1988) in a st udy of rocky jetty-type stru ctures in Murell’s Inlet,

South Carolina. Carr and A dams (1972) documented that D. holbrooki fed on ectoparasites and were

therefore considered to be cleaners. Juveniles of D. argenteus have been observed cleaning larger fishes in NHB environments (D. Snyder, C SA International, Inc., pers. observ.).

5.5.2 Shelter Use

5.5.2.1 Spawning Areas and Larval Transport

Nearshore spawning in most motile and

site-associated herbivores is not well known. There is

considerable information from other locations and typically deeper, more coralline habitats for damselfishes. At least four damselfish species (sergeant major [ Abudefduf saxatilis ], cocoa damselfish [ Stegastes variabilis ], dusky damselfish [ S

. adustus ], and beaugregory [ S

. leucostictus ]) can spawn directly on NHB surface to build their egg nests ( Figure 5.9 ). These species can clear algae from the substrata and lay adhesive demersal eggs directly

onto the rock surface.

It is difficult to summarize the use of NHB habitat for spawning in non-nesting species of herbivorous fishes since research information is very limited. Many species exhibit larger adult populations on deeper reefs, but the complexity is amplified in areas of the study region where NHB is not discrete, but is instead part of a continuous IHB through OHB habitat gradient. Other prominent taxa that can potentially spawn in association with NHB include porgies (Sparidae).

Many other herbivores that use NHB are primarily represented by early life stages and typically do not spawn in association with NHB, though they may spawn in association with OHB. This includes some species of scarids and acanthurids. Figure 5.9. Example of nest of the sergeant major ( Abudefduf saxatilis ) on hardbottom, 20 m depth, Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida.

Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 2 5-16 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 5.5.2.2 Settlement and Early Associations with Shelter

At least 20 species of herbivorous fishes settle on NHB. The more abundant of these include some of the most well known reef fishes of the Caribbean: serg eant major, cocoa damself ish, redfin and bucktooth parrotfishes ( Sparisoma rubripinne and S. radians , in northern and southern sites, respectively), and doctorfish and ocean surgeonfish ( Acanthurus chirurgus and A. bahianus , respectively). Seasonal recruitment pulses of these and other herbivores may simultaneously influence algal assemblage composition and provide a prey base for larger piscivores.

Herbivorous species of damselfishes and surgeonfishe s have displayed substantial temporal variation in larval recruitment studies in other regions, and th ese patterns have been used to argue that coral reef fishes represent non-equilibrium system s (Sale, 1991). Notably, these studies are typically from deeper and more coralline habitats. It is logical to also tr eat NHB habitats as non-equilibrium systems that are highly mediated by disturbances that impact algal and herbivore abundance in unstudied manners.

Most of species of scarids (parrotfishes) settle on NHB or IHB. Baron et al. (2004) recorded stoplight ( Sparisoma viride ) and bucktooth parrotfishes as small as 2 cm and six other species including Scarus spp. and bluelip parrotfish ( Cryptotomus roseus ) as small as 3 cm, strongly suggesting that these individuals settled on NHB or OHB in their study ar ea. Lindeman and Snyder (1999) observed newly settled silver porgy that settled predictably in relati vely high numbers during late winter and early spring. Damselfishes and chubs do not appear to have particularly distinct settlement seasons but were sporadically observed as newly settled individuals.

5.5.2.3 Juvenile and Adult Habitat

Shelter use characteristics of herbivores largely invo lve daytime site associations and social behaviors that can be considered in terms of either site-associated species or wide-ranging, often schooling species. The primary site-associated herbivores include at least two different groups: the damselfishes, which can enforce relatively sizeable territories to maintain algal feeding sites, and species of gobiids and blenniids. The feeding of the latter group is less known than in damselfishes, but is assumed to be

associated with short-distance benthic browsing movements. More motile and gregarious species also feed on NHB macroalgae, including surgeonfishes, parrotfishes, and chubs. These species can form sizable schools that effectively remove macroalgal cover on deeper reefs.

The numerical contribution of herbivores to the asse mblages characterized by Baron et al. (2004) in Fort Lauderdale and Lindeman and Snyder (1999) in Jupiter differed in terms of overall diversity and

abundance of dominant taxa. Censuses conducted in Jupiter (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999) revealed that 26% of the individuals observed were herbivores, nu merically dominated by (in rank order of abundance) silver porgy, cocoa damselfish, ocean surgeon, doctorfish, redfin parrotfish, redtail parrotfish ( S. chrysopterum ), and juvenile parrotfish ( Sparisoma spp.). The diversity of herbivores, especially the parrotfishes, was higher in the southern area studied by Baron et al. (2004). They observed 17 herbivore species, including damselfishes, porgies, surg eonfishes, parrotfishes, and chubs; this group was dominated numerically by bucktooth parrotfish. Parrotfishes represented 2% of the individual abundances recorded in transects by Baron et al . (2004). Lindeman and Snyder (1999) found higher abundances of chubs, porgies, and cocoa damselfishes in Jupiter.

5.5.3 Trophic Patterns

Early life stages of schooling herbivores frequent ly occur in association with NHB and include the surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), parro tfishes (Scaridae), chubs (Kyphosidae), and porgies (Sparidae) ( Figure 5.10 ). Available evidence suggests that all the sp eci es of the three former families are almost wholly herbivorous (Randall, 1967; Sierra, 2001), but t he porgies are not. The seasonally abundant silver

porgy, D. argenteus , fed on algae, gastropods, and crabs in t he northeast Caribbean and is omnivorous (Randall, 1967). Non-schooling herbivores that are residents on NHB include the damselfishes (five species), some species of filefishes, one specie s of spiny puffer, several blenniids, and perhaps all of the gobiids (Randall, 1967).Section 2 5-17 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### There are few or no feeding

studies on these families from

east Florida hardbottom habitats. In the northeast Caribbean, all species of Stegastes are omnivorous, with some annelids and crustaceans as well as algae seen in their gut contents. Beaugregory and threespot damselfish ( Stegastes planifrons ) were found to have the most algae in their diet per volume (Randall, 1967). Sergeant major also is omnivorous, feeding on algae, anthozoans, and crustaceans. Based on Randall (1967), omnivores include 1) species of filefishes that feed on hydrozoans, algae, gorgonians, and zooantharians, and 2) the sharpnose puffer, Canthigaster

rostrata , which feeds on plants, sponges, echinoids, and molluscs.

Hay and Sutherland (1988) state that in warm temper ate, rocky nearshore habitats, well-lit areas are algae-dominated and shaded areas are the realm of inverteb rates. In east Florida, we cannot falsify this since well-lit open areas of NHB can be dominated by algae (though P. lapidosa encrustations can also dominate in some locations). This is presumably one reason that from a distance, the ichthyofauna on the well-lit crests of shallow hardbottom can appear to be dominated by herbivores (chubs, porgies, damselfishes), while many invertivores are located near-bottom, associated with microhabitats away from the most well-lit and open areas.

5.5.4 Developmental Patterns and Cross-shelf Habitat Use

Resident herbivores such as damselfishes and cr yptic hardbottom species do not engage in ontogenetic habitat shifts. Some schooling species (surgeonfishes , parrotfishes, or chubs) represented largely by juveniles on NHB may migrate away from NHB to deeper structural habitats with maturation, but definitive information is unavailable. The ability to successfu lly make such migrations will correlate in complex manners with the degree to which cross-shelf habitat corridors are available an d also drivers associated with potential ontogenetic shifts in food needs.

5.5.5 Latitudinal Distribution

There are complex similarities and differences in t he presence and abundance of herbivores between the two sites for which quantitative data are available. Cocoa damselfish was the most abundant pomacentrid in both studies, however, the closely-re lated beaugregory was much more abundant at the southern site. Sergeant major were abundant in both areas (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004).

The silver porgy (represented primarily by juveniles, which are not herbivorous) was the second-most abundant species at the northern Jupiter sites but was not a significant component of the Fort Lauderdale assemblage (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004). More parrotfish species were found in the Fort Lauderdale study, probably due to the wider depth di stributions of the surveys. Floeter et al. (2005) documented a negative correlation between diversity and dens ity of herbivorous fishes with latitude, thus the low numbers of herbivorous species observ ed on NHB may reflect a larger-scale pattern. Figure 5.10. Early juvenile stages of reef herbivores including surgeonfishes, damselfishes, and parrotfishes on nearshore hardbottom, 3 m depth, Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 2 5-18 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 5.6 SUMMARY

5.6.1 Species Richness

During the present study, it was possible to revisit an d expand upon the most recent fish species lists for

NHB of mainland east Florida. Based on new and ol d information, including the work of Baron et al. (2004) and Herrema (1974), over 250 species of fishes are now recorded from NHB ( Appendix C

, Table C.1 ). This list documents species records and spatial and temporal attributes for all fish species recorded from NHB. Similarities with many shallo w coral reef assemblages are present (Banks et al., 2008). Differences between NHB fish assembl ages and hermatypic reef assemblages in OHB depth ranges can involve the higher relative proportion of early life history stages on NHB structures, a juvenile-dominated assemblage (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004).

The current working number of species is 257 ( Appendix C

, Table C.1 ) from 68 families. The previous list of fish species recorded from 0 to 4 m NHB totaled 192 species (Lindeman, 1997a). Primary additions to that estimate derive from the Baron et al. (2004) study in the southern project area in depths to 7 m, which added several dozen species to the list of reco rds, many of which are uncommon or not found in 0 to 4 m NHB in the northern project region. This pattern suggests that there is a southern NHB ichthyofauna and a less diverse norther n fauna, particularly north of the deflection of the Gulf Stream

offshore. We also characterized fundamental ecological attributes of these species ( Appendix C

, Table C.1 ). Species assessments of trophic patterns, residency, size classes, life stages, and the components within from this table (e.g., higher percentages of piscivores and planktivores compared to herbivores) are ongoing.

5.6.2 Spawning

A wide range of spawning patterns is seen among the fis hes of east Florida shallow hardbottom. Nesting is undertaken in differing manners by species of fishes from quite different families. Damselfishes, locally abundant herbivores, can influence subtidal fish distributions on 1-m scal es by their aggressive territoriality. Some of the species recorded from NHB build and protect nests in which they grow their young, sometimes at monthly intervals (Thresher, 1984) . Several very different families, including the site-attached labrisomids, blennies, and gobies (pot entially important predators of small fishes and invertebrates), also build nests in cryptic manners on NHB structure, often laterally or upside-down on inverted microhabitats. Though understudied, we estimate that over 30 fish species spawn in association with NHB. Most motile species do not spawn on NHB, though there probably are exceptions. In addition, some coastal pelagics spawn on or near NHB (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1992).

5.6.3 Settlement and Early Associations with Habitat

Directed studies of fish settlement in NHB through OH B depths are lacking in the mainland east Florida study region. Patterns of settlement can be inferr ed from the larger, assemblage studies. In some species of grunts, there is evidence of potentially substantial va riation in larval recruitment among years (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Jordan et al., 2004; Continental Shelf Associates, 2006; Coastal Eco-Group Inc., 2008). However, estimates of temporal patterns in fish settlement in the region (from seasonal to interannual) are currently based on very limited information.

Information on the use of the water column by settl ement-stage larvae is lacking. Larval occurrence of

some taxa in surf zone areas has been examined in ot her areas but not in this study region (Ruple, 1984; Jahn and Lavenberg, 1986). Low or high relief hardbottom could be a visual cue for settling larvae, but other sensory systems, particularly hearing and olfacti on, can also be important (Kingsford et al., 2002). Larval fishes, including many clupeids, engraulids, and atherinids (Sponaugle et al., 2003), can form assemblages over shallow coral reefs but are unstudied over NHB or IHB. Sponaugle et al. (2003) found that shallow, near-reef larval fish as semblages differed from offshore collections. A significant aspect of this was the higher nearshore frequency of haemulid larvae.Section 2 5-19 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Are nearshore fish larvae spending substantial time in the water column near NHB before settling there? This is possible for some taxa (e.g., clupeioids) but cannot be confirmed without more empirical support. For many species in South Florida, transport of larvae to NHB or OHB settlement areas may occur via cross-shelf oceanographic transport mechanisms resu lting from diverse meso-scale phenomena in south and east Florida (Lee et al., 1995; Limouzy-Paris et al., 1997).

5.6.4 Developmental Patterns and Cross-shelf Habitat Use

Substantial stretches of NHB exist in portions of Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties (26°20' to 27°15' N) and elsewhere (Perkins et al., 1997; Table 2.1 , present study). Although these areas are typically separated by kilomete rs of sand, there are some areas where there is a semi-continuous hardbottom gradient from the beac h into depths exceeding 6 m. Offshore, many mid-shelf areas (5- to 20-m depths) are also domi nated by expanses of sand, despite the variable occurrence of several mid-shelf reefs. Therefore, in many shallow areas, there are no natural habitats in the same or adjacent nearshore areas that can s upport equivalent abundances of early life stages of fishes and the invertebrates they largely feed on. Abse nces of nursery structure can logically result in increased predation and lowered growth. In newly settled and juvenile stages, such conditions could foster demographic bottlenecks that ultimately resu lt in lowered local population sizes (Jones, 1991).

Empirical information is highly limited on the am ount of connectivity between shallow patches of hardbottom and deeper reefs for fishes and invertebra tes of east Florida. The limited available information suggests that diverse fish species that can ontogenetica lly migrate into deeper water use NHB during early life stages (Gilmore et al., 1981; Vare, 1991; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004). If the NHB in use is close enough to IHB or OHB, some of these species, depending on many changing biophysical drivers (e.g., predation, growth , larval recruitment) coul d migrate ontogenetically into deeper habitats. Answers to the question, “How close is close enough ?” will vary by species, site, and time. For fishes, tagging studies would be usef ul using species on highly segregated, NHB-depth reefs in comparison to fishes tagged on NHB structure that is not restricted to depths <4 m but extends as emergent structure into depths of >6 m.

NHB can be not only spatially patchy for shallow org anisms, it can also be temporally patchy due to natural burial events. Natural burial events are typica lly associated with rapid sediment redistributions in association with high wind and/or wave events. These events and partial or complete NHB burial are

more common in the winter. In the absence of so me storm-induced burial of subpatches or patches of habitat, NHB can be subject to very high wave energy and substantial scouring of surfaces, especially in the intertidal and immediate subtidal. Many orga nisms assumedly would associate with shelter as possible during these events, perhaps moving into the deepest NHB or IHB or nearby sand area available and returning post-event, if feasible. Information on organismal responses to high wind and wave events is needed and will assist in discerning larger patterns of cross-shelf distribution.

Are there substantive reasons to not consider the fis hes associated with NHB a reef fish assemblage? A useful discussion on this topic in the literature oc curred regarding benchline criteria for both taxonomic and ecological definitions of “what reef fishes are” (Bellwood and Sorbini, 1996; Bellwood, 1998; Robertson, 1998a,b). Bellwood (1998) concluded that reef fish assemblages ultimately occur in association with too many non-coral reef structures and recommended instead the term fishes on coral

reefs . Robertson identified various challenges to a unif ying taxonomic structure. He defined reef fishes as “species that live on consolidated substrata that form coral and inorganic reefs. ” He described inorganic reefs, including rocky shores, as follows : “... the inorganic bedrock provides large and small physical structure that fishes use as habitat features...”. In addition, all of the 10 consensus families of reef fishes in Bellwood (1998) are represented in asso ciation with NHB of east Florida. Earlier sections detail the long-standing geological literature on the reef attributes of NHB (e.g., Chapters 1 and 2 ).

These line s of evidence suggest there are few, if any , reasons to conclude that the fishes of NHB of mainland east Florida do not constitute a reef fish assemblage.Section 2 5-20 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 5.6.5 Trophic Patterns and Functional Groups

There are no feeding studies of fishes from shallow ha rdbottom habitats in the project region. The most

detailed examination of food habits of Caribbean reef and coastal pelagic fishes remains Randall (1967). His study areas were in the U.S. Virgin Islands and P uerto Rico. In the last decade, a series of detailed studies of feeding and habitat use of grunts and sn appers has occurred in Curacao and other Caribbean islands (e.g, Nagelkerken et al., 2000; Dorenbosch et al., 2004). The older and newer trophic studies are largely from insular systems with potential differences in seascapes and landscapes in comparison to continental, mainland shelf areas such as east Flor ida (Robins, 1991). Based largely on studies from insular areas, the grunts and margates of the genera Haemulon and Anisotremus show a wide array of invertivory. Some species are planktivorous as adults ( H. striatum ), others are very specialized for feeding on hard-shelled invertebrates ( H. macrostomum ), while the majority of species are relatively generalized feeders on both soft- and hard-invertebrat e prey, often from either softbottom or hardbottom environments (Randall, 1967; Sierra, 2001).

Most NHB species are demersal invertivores; howe ver, assemblages also include important demersal piscivores and planktivores. Over 50 species of NHB fishes consume invertebrates as a primary dietary component. Eleven species of wrasse exihibit a pattern similar to grunts and other families: invertebrates from many diverse taxa are consumed by differing c ongeners with low to high levels of specialization within the genus. For example, many wrasse species (genus Halichoeres ) feed on “shelled invertebrates” in the northeast Caribbean, though specific dietary co mpositions can vary (Randall, 1967; Randall’s data tabulated by taxa in Sierra, 2001). The dominant l abrid in both the Jupiter and Fort Lauderdale studies was the slippery dick ( H. bivittatus ). This species feeds on crabs, urchins, annelids, and gastropods (Randall, 1967) and is an opportunistic feeder. Other labrids, such as the clown wrasse, H. maculipinna

, primarily feed on soft annelids (Randall, 1967). As m entioned elsewhere, these comparative patterns are largely predictive without empirical feedi ng information from the project region.

Although the NHB assemblage is juvenile-dominated, a well-developed food web exists, with all of the trophic categories of Bellwood’s (1998) “consensus r eef fish families” represented, including diverse herbivores and piscivores on juvenile fishes. Following from Randall (1967) and Bohnsack and Harper (1988), we characterized fish species according to the following trophic categories: herbivore, planktivore, detritivore, invertivore, and piscivore. This categorization scheme aids assessment of potential functional groups to better understand trophic relationships among NHB, IHB, and OHB assemblages. When the full spectrum of ontogenetic dietary shifts is considered for most species, many are omnivorous (e.g., planktivory to invertivory to piscivory from species as diverse as labrisomids and lutjanids). The degree of feeding variation within individual genera can be high, and it is very important to recognize that feeding patterns can vary geographically based not only on variable within-species behavior but based also on geography-dependent food availability (Turingan et al., 1995) and

inter-annual variations in food availability (Sierra, 2001).

The most prevalent trophic component among species was invertebrate feeding ( Figure 5.11 ). Invertivory was four times more common among species than herbivory or planktivory. Randall categorized the diversity of invertivores according to 1) sessile animal feeders (e.g., sergeant major feeding on Zooanthus ), 2) “shelled” invertivores (e.g., most

Halichoeres species of wrasses), and 3) generalized invertebrate predators. The latter group was by far Figure 5.11. Relative adult trophic composition as measured by numbers of species per functional grouping.Section 2 5-21 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### the biggest and included eels, squirrelfi shes, snappers, species of basslets ( Serrranus ), some drums (sciaenids), goatfishes (mullids), pompanos ( Trachinotus spp.), clown wrasse ( H. maculipinna ), and some labrisomids, including the hairy blenny. Specialized invertebrate feeding can occur as well, as in the preference for echinoids in older black marg ates. Early juvenile stages of porkfish, Anisotremus virginicus , and porgies, Diplodus spp., can serve as cleaners of invertebrate ectoparasites.

Piscivory ranked almost twice as high as herbivory and planktivory ( Figure 5.11 ) but is inflated by the presence on the list of many piscivorous pelagic species that uncommonly associate with NHB. Prominent piscivores include lizardfshes (synodont ids), jacks, snappers, muraenid and ophichthid eels ( Gymnothorax and Ophichthus spp.), mackerels, and sharks. Many diverse piscivores feed on invertebrates as well (e.g., tarpon, nurse sharks) (Randall, 1967).

Herbivores were represented by juvenile stages of many common schooling herbivore species of Caribbean reefs and included the surgeonfishes (three species of Acanthurus ), parrotfishes (especially redfish parrotfish), silver porgy ( Diplodus ), and chubs ( Kyphosus incisor and K. sectatrix ) ( Appendix C

, Table C.1 ). Less mobile herbivores include the damselfishes (five species). Omnivorous species of filefishes and puffers, all gobiids, and several blennioids are also herbivorous (Randall, 1967).

Planktivorous fishes of shallow hardbottom are diverse and include over 10 species of herring and anchovies (clupeids and engraulids), scads ( Decapterus spp. and Selar crumenophthalmus ), and a variety of demersal fishes including specie s of apogonids, blackbar soldierfish ( Myripristis jacobus ), and small demersal schools of copper sweeper ( Pempheris schomburgkii ). Some locally abundant NHB species, including thread herring ( Opisthonema oglinum ) and copper sweeper, were found by Randall (1967) to feed heavily on polychaete larvae (23% of total volume, 23 specimens and 27%, 19 specimens, respectively) in the northeast insular Caribbean. Subst antial planktivory also occured in species of drums ( Pareques spp. and Odontoscion dentex ), sergeant major, bluehead wr asse, and juvenile stages of haemulids and carangids (Randall, 1967). The spec ies-specific and collective impacts of these planktivores upon the seasonal dynamics of worm reef formation by P. lapidosa larvae deserve study.

5.6.6 Latitudinal Variations in Shallow Hardbottom Fish Assemblages

Some differences among ichthyofaunal assemblage s are present between the southern and northern areas of mainland southeast and east-central Florida in terms of the most abundant species and habitat structure (e.g., earlier examples in present chapter; Appendix C

, Table C.1 ). Factors influencing these potential differences include 1) differences in the quan tity or structure of sha llow hardbottom of southeast Florida compared to east central Florida and 2) major, long term differences between southern and northern sites in presence/absence or abundance of locally promin ent species. The available NHB areal data shows higher cover in some areas compared to others ( Table 2.1 ). In the second case, there are not easy numeric or image-based answers. In term s of assemblages, the differences could be based on true differences in fish assemblages between southeast Florida and east-central Florida or sampling artifacts, differing physical regimes, larval recruitm ent variation, post-settlement growth and mortality variation, or combinations of these factors.

There are significant differences in abundance between three of the most abundant species in the Jupiter area in comparison to the Fort Lauderdale area. On ly one black margate out of >72,000 individuals was recorded in Fort Lauderdale (Baron et al., 2004), whil e 636 black margates out of 10,491 individuals were censused in Lindeman and Snyder (1999). Also, 43 sa ilors choice were recorded in Baron et al. (2004) with mean lengths above 15 cm, while 1,326 H. parra individuals were recorded in Lindeman and Snyder (1999), primarily early juvenile stages below 5 cm . The hairy blenny was the most abundant cryptic hardbottom fish species in the Jupiter surveys, with 806 individuals recorded in transect surveys, 8% of the overall individual total (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). Though the hairy blenny was recorded in qualitative roving diver surveys, none were recorded in transect and point-counts in Fort Lauderdale (Baron et al., 2004).Section 2 5-22 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Potential explanations for such marked difference in dominant species within the 100-km north-south distance between these studies may include temporal re cruitment variations, NHB structural differences between survey areas, species reaching their biogeog raphic distributional limits between these sites, and other factors. The Fort Lauderdale study occu rred during several summer months in 2001, while the Jupiter study occurred between 1994 and 1996. Recruitment in haemulids can vary across temporal scales (McFarland et al., 1985; Jordan et al., 2004), and the possibility that the patterns reflect differences in interannual larval recruitment in the 6 year s between these survey snapshots cannot be excluded.

NHB structural differences probably exist between thes e areas as described above, but many of the more prominent species appear to be relatively opportunistic in their use of differing NHB and IHB microhabitat

structure. At least three of the prominent species (black margate, sailors choice, and hairy blenny) with apparent major distributional differences here are listed by Gilmore and Hastings (1983) as species

whose Florida distributions are restricted to east Flor ida, not occurring in the Gulf of Mexico as congeners do. More research is required to parse the multiple factors and examine the above alternatives to better understand these and other north-to-south differences in fish assemblage pattern.Section 2 6-1 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

# C h a p t e r 6

M a r i n e T u r t l e s

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Much of what is known about marine turtles in Florida is from their nesting habits on sandy beaches. More recently, acknowledgment has been made regarding the importance of NHB as important habitat for juvenile and subadult species of marine turtles. Green ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) turtles utilize NHB as development al habitat in waters around Florida. These species have fundamental development al requirements that are supplied by nearshore hardbottom (e.g., food, shelter, predator avoidance). Data from mark and recapture studies indicate that turtles may revisit or take up long-term residency on nearshore reefs (Holloway-Adki ns, in prep.). Impacts of coastal development on marine turtles include pollution, dredge and fill projects, shoreline hardening, and commercial and recreational fishing activities. This document explores the use of nearshore waters by adult marine turtles and their hatchlings; however, particular focus is directed towards the use of NHB as developmental habitat for juvenile stages of marine turtles.

6.1.1 Adult Marine Turtles

Nearshore waters act as important corridors during the life history stage of nesting adult females and emerging marine turtle hatchlings. The terrestrial en counter with sandy beaches for nesting represents but a brief moment in the life history of all marine turt les; however, due to the ease of accessibility, it has been the most studied. Populations of adult female marine turtles use nearshore waters to access adjacent beaches during turtle nesting seasons. Depending on the species, nesting in Florida can begin as early as February for leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) and end as late as November for green turtles.

NHB exists adjacent to many of the prime nesting beaches on the east Florida coast. Rocks are exposed during low tide events on some of these beaches; howe ver, no historical evidence exists indicating NHB rock impedes marine turtle nesting in these areas. Turtles have been observed climbing over exposed rocks while entering and exiting the surf during nesting events ( Figure 6.1 ).

Figure 6.1. Adult female green turtles (in foregr ound and distance) crossing the nearshore hardbottom structure after nesting in Coral Cove Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 2 6-2 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 6.1.2 Hatchling Marine Turtles

A generalized conceptual model of ontogenetic habitat stages for marine turtles was constructed by Musick and Limpus (1997) that describes the functiona l role of oceanic and neritic habitats in the life history of marine turtles ( Figure 6.2 ). The life cycle for most marine tu rtle species begins on a subtropical or tropical beach. Marine turtles hatch from eggs inside clutches of eggs laid and incubated in warm summer sands. Newly hatched turtles emerge from the nest and make their way across the sand and

into the ocean. Turtles that hatch from Florida’s At lantic beaches are believed to spend the next 3 to 11 years (highly variable among species) in the pelag ic environment, riding eddies and other circulatory systems within the North Atlantic Gyre ( Figure 6.3 ). Juvenile green turtles enter neritic habitats at around 20 to 25 cm straight carapace length (SCL). Data from age-at-size models indicate their age to be approximately 3 to 5 years (Witherington et al ., 2006a). Loggerheads are rarely encountered in nearshore environments until approximately 45 cm SCL. Their time at large is estimated to be between 6.5 and 11.5 years (Bjorndal et al., 2000).

Figure 6.2. Conceptual model of ontogenetic habitat st ages in marine turtles (From: Musick and Limpus, 1997).Section 2 6-3 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Figure 6.3. North Atlantic Gyre wi th potential oceanic transport routes for juvenile marine turtles (From: Musick and Limpus, 1997).

More recently, adjacent hardbottom habitats have been recognized as juvenile developmental habitat (Wershoven and Wershoven, 1992a; Bresette et al., 1998; Ehrhart et al., 2001; Holloway-Adkins et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2004; Makowski et al., 2006b; Ga rrido, 2007). Few data exist on populations of marine turtles utilizing NHB as developmental habitat, and not enough data are available to clearly establish long-term patterns in the distribution an d abundance of marine turtles associated with NHB on the east Florida coast. Data herein are predomin antly from non-peer reviewed articles, reports, and personal communications and observations, though more information is beginning to enter the peer-review literature. Table 6.1 lists marine turtle species and their presence in or around NHB and indicates areas that are still in question.

6.1.3 Predators

Many predators prey upon hatchling s even before they leave the nest. Frequently, ghost crabs, beetles, worms, and other invertebrates invade the nest bef ore hatchlings emerge to t he surface of the sand. Raccoons, coyotes, and vultures are capable of de stroying nests and consuming eggs and hatchlings. If a hatchling survives exiting the ne st, reaches the surface, and makes it s way to the sea, a ghost crab, sea bird, or a raccoon may consume it. Once in t he water, the long journey out to meet the Florida Current is wrought with more predators that are capa ble of making a meal of a small hatchling turtle. Interestingly, Whelan and Wyneken (2007) found no significant differences between predation levels of hatchlings migrating from nearshore waters over either sand or hardbottom nearshore waters; however, higher hatchling predation levels were documented for animals that migrated over the more predator-rich hardbottom habitat. As marine turtles mature, thei r largest threat comes in the form of discarded anthropogenic debris that turtles may ingest (Bjorndal et al., 1994) or become entangled in and drown. Impacts from commercial fishing activities (e.g., dr owning in shrimp trawler nets, long-line fishing gear, and gill nets) pose the greatest threats to loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) turtles.Section 2 6-4 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow HardbottomTable 6.1. Role (functions) of nearshore hardbottom (NHB) (and reference to offshore hardbottom [OHB]) in marine turtle life history stages.SpeciesLife StageNHBOHBDietShelterCorridorRelativeOccurrencehatchling no no n/a no yes n/apost no no omnivorousno yes n/ajuvenile yes yesomnivorous -herbivorousyes yes n/asubadult no no herbivorous no possibleoccasionalGreen turtle(Chelonia mydas)adultnonoherbivorous OHB – nesting? yesoccasionalhatchling no no n/a no yes frequentpost no no omnivorous no yes occasionaljuvenile yes yes carnivorous possible probablynot raresubadult yes yes carnivorous possible possible occasionalLoggerhead turtle(Caretta caretta)adultyesyes carnivorous OHB – nesting yesoccasionalhatchlingnonon/anopossiblerarepostnono omnivorousnonorarejuvenile yes yes spongivorous yes possible occasionalsubadult yes yes spongivorous yes possible occasionalHawksbill turtle(Eretmochelys imbricata)adult no no spongivorous OHB – nesting? possible occasionalhatchling no no n/a no yes frequentpost no no jellyfishes no no n/ajuvenile no no jellyfishes no no nosubadultnonojellyfishesnononoLeatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)adult yes yes jellyfishes no possible occasionaln/a = Not available.Section 2 6-5 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 6.1.4 Water Depth

Visual transect surveys to determine turtle density distribution along NHB were conducted by Inwater Research Group, Inc. (2005) in St. Lucie and Martin Counties. Transects we re surveyed for turtles inshore (200 m from shore, 3 m water depth) and offs hore (400 m from shore, 4 m water depth) waters. Inwater Research Group, Inc. found that loggerhead turt les were similarly distributed across inshore and offshore surveys. However, green turtle densities were twice as high inshore as offshore. It is possible that loggerheads select deeper reef and sand bottom habitats to forage and rest. Their food resources are available in both habitat types. Visual transec t surveys conducted in Brev ard (Holloway-Adkins and Provancha, 2005) and Indian River (I nwater Research Group, Inc., 2004) Counties indicate the density of juvenile green turtles is higher in shallow nearshore waters. High catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) rates are

associated with the shallower reefs in 1.5 to 2.5 m water depths, closest to shore in Brevard and Indian River Counties (unpublished data).

6.1.5 Seasonality

Transect survey data indicate that marine turtles are present year-round at a ll of the NHB study sites (Inwater Research Group, Inc., 2004, 2005; Hollowa y-Adkins, 2005). Seasonal data from tangle net capture methods are normally restricted to summer m onths when ocean conditions are relatively calm. Tangle nets, however, are used to capture turtles entra ined into the intake canals at the St. Lucie Power Plant in St. Lucie County. Seasonal data from the plant show a high number of very small size-class juvenile green turtles (potential new ocean recruits ) are present each winter (Bresette et al., 1998).

6.2 SPECIES OVERVIEWS

Five of the seven circumglobally distributed marine tu rtles species have been observed in or adjacent to NHB of mainland east Florida. Largely depending on the ti me of year or latitude of observation, the most frequently observed turtles commonly are green, l oggerhead, and hawksbill turtles. In deep offshore waters (>20 m), fishermen have reported frequent sightings of loggerhead turtles and occasional sightings of leatherback turtles.

A small number of studies have investigated marine turt les in nearshore waters on the east Florida coast ( Figure 6.4

, Table 6.2 ). Two relatively long-term studies (i.e., 19+ years) have been conducted on

marine turtles associated with NHB on the east Florid a coast. Ehrhart et al. (2003) has researched marine turtles on sabellariid worm reefs near Sebastian Inlet in Indian River County, in summer, since 1989. A long-term study of marine turtles entrained from offshore cool-water intake pipes at the St. Lucie Power Plant in St. Lucie County has been documented since 1976 (Bresette et al., 1998; Ecological Associates, Inc., 2000).

Shorter or more recent studies have been cond ucted in Brevard County (Holloway-Adkins and Provancha, 2005), Palm Beach County (Makowski et al., 2006b) (L. Wood, Palm Beach Zoo, unpublished data), and Broward County (Wershoven and Wershoven, 1992a). Additional studies utilizing passive observation techniques to describe and/or assess marine turtle populations over NHB have been used in Indian River County (Inwater Research Group, In c., 2004), St. Lucie and Martin Counties (Inwater Research Group, Inc., 2005), Palm Beach Count y (Jones et al., 2004; Garrido, 2007) and Broward County (Makowski et al., 2006a). Wood’s (2006) study is the first and only study to focus on hawksbill

turtles on the east coast of Florida.

There are few studies that utilize tangle net capture methods in NHB, but this method standardizes CPUE so comparisons among studies can be made. CPUE is based on the length of the net or nets used, the amount of time the net is in the water, and the number of turtles captured during that time. CPUE data indicate higher capture numbers pe r effort in Indian River County ( Table 6.3 ).Section 2 6-6 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Figure 6.4. General locations of study areas for ma rine turtles in coastal areas superimposed over distribution of reef-building sabellariid worms along mainland east Florida (Modified from: Zale and Merrifield, 1989). Mid-Reach Nearshore Hardbottom Turtle Study – Brevard County

Sabellariid Worm Reef Turtle Study – Indian River County

St. Lucie Power Plant Water Flow

Intake from Nearshore Reef Turtle Study – St. Lucie County

Nearshore Reef Green Turtle Study – Palm Beach County

Nearshore Reef Hawksbill Turtle Study – Palm Beach County

Nearshore Reef Turtle Study – Broward CountySection 2 6-7 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 6.2. Marine turtle mark and recapture popul ation studies conducted ov er nearshore hardbottom.

Marine Turtle Study Location (County) Capture Method Time of Year Duration Permit Holder (Current) Species

Mid-Reach Brevard Tangle nets Mostly summe r 2004 to Present Holloway-Adkins Cm, Cc

Indian River County Indian River Tangle nets Summer 1989 to Present Ehrhart Cm, Cc, Ei

St. Lucie Power Plant St. Lucie Entrainment

and nets Year-round 1976 to Present Bresette Cm, Cc, Ei,
Dc, Lk

Little Breakers Reef Palm Beach Night SCUBA diving Summer and Fall 2003 to 2004 Wyneken Cm

Breakers Reef Palm Beach SCUBA di ving Year-round 2004 to Present Wood Ei

Broward County Broward SCUBA diving Year-round 1987 Wershoven Cm, Cc, Ei

Cm = Chelonia mydas ; Cc = Caretta caretta ; Ei = Eretmochelys imbricata ; Dc = Dermochelys coriacea ; Lk = Lepidochelys kempii

.



### Table 6.3. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for mari ne turtle population studies conducted with tangle net capture methods adjacent to nearshore hardbotto m habitats on the east coast of Florida.

Location CPUE Year N

Worm reefs, Indian River County, Florida (Data from Ehrhart et al., 2001) 38.86 2000 98

Worm reefs, Indian River County, Florida (Data from Ehrhart et al., 1996) 6.28 1989 to 1995 190

Nearshore reefs, Brevard Coun ty, Florida 3.52 2003 to 2004 20

Nearshore reefs, Brevard County, Florida 1.25 2005 9



### Most adult female marine turtle species travel se veral hundred kilometers from foraging grounds to nesting beaches to lay eggs (Hirth, 1997). Nesti ng populations of turtles are believed to use nearshore waters predominantly as a corridor to the adjacent nesting beach, and green and loggerhead turtles have been observed mating close to shore (K. Holloway-Adkins, ECB, pers. observ.). However, adult loggerhead and green turtles have been frequently observ ed using OHB as rest areas during the nesting season in relatively large numbers, especially on reef s adjacent to Palm Beach County (Mortimer, 1995). There is no evidence to suggest that turtles laying subsequent clutches on east Florida beaches are foraging in adjacent waters during this period.

High and low relief in NHB offers sheltered rest areas for marine turtles ( Figure 6.5 ). Divers frequently observe loggerhead turtles resting under ledges and in shallow depressions on the reef (K. Holloway-Adkins, ECB, pers. observ.). Juvenile green turtles are easily captur ed, as they also rest under low relief areas and in shallow depressions in the reef (Makowski, 2004). Over 100 hawksbill turtles have been hand-captured from reefs in sha llow (~2 m) and deep water (>18 m; Wood, 2006). Hawksbill turtles were more frequently captured on d eeper reef areas, and all recaptured turtles were captured from deep reefs (L. Wood, Palm Beach Zoo, pers. comm.).Section 2 6-8 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Figure 6.5. Loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) resting on offshore hardbottom, Breakers Reef, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by S. Hurley



### .

6.2.1 Green Turtles

Juvenile green turtles are speculated to spend the first few years of their life in the pelagic (oceanic) zone, feeding on a variety of invertebrates and plants, and drifting with Sargassum racks along converging fronts (Carr and Meylan, 1980). However, effort s to confirm this hypothesis have been difficult (Witherington et al., 2006a). It appears that after approximately 2 to 5 years (at approximately 20 to 25 cm), green turtles move into shallow coastal and estuarine waters (Hirth, 1997; Musick and Limpus, 1997) ( Figure 6.6 ).

Figure 6.6. Juvenile green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) over nearshore hardbottom in Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 2 6-9 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### At present, green turtles are the most frequently ob served marine turtle species found associated with NHB from Brevard to Broward Counties. The presence of juvenile green turtles during surveys conducted during each season and observations of individual animals year-round suggest some animals continuously use NHB for several years. Where shallow NHB (intertidal and shallow subtidal waters) exists, juvenile green turtle densities were observed to be higher than they were in deeper, subtidal areas in Brevard (Holloway-Adkins, 2006), Indian River (E hrhart et al., 2001), St. Lucie (Inwater Research Group, Inc., 2005), and Martin (Inwater Research Group, Inc., 2005) Counties. In areas where intertidal hardbottom was non-existent (Palm Beach and Broward Counties), juven ile green turtles utilized the first line of shallow reefs that paralleled the shor e (Wershoven and Wershoven, 1992a; Makowski, 2004; Garrido, 2007).

Ecological Associates, Inc. (2000) reported a substant ial increase in the number of juvenile green turtles captured annually at the St. Lucie Power Plant afte r 1992, and their speculations as to why this has occurred include cooler water temperatures in northe rn regions, increased reef area providing a more abundant foraging resource, or an overall increase in the population of juvenile green turtles. None of

these reasons have been substantiat ed to date; however, since their report (Ecological Associates, Inc., 2000), the relative abundance of green turtles has still remained high on NHB.

Mitochondrial DNA analysis conducted by Bagley (20 03) and by Bass and Witzell (2000) indicate green turtles using NHB foraging grounds on the east coast of Florida showed high levels of genetic diversity. Bagley (2003) found 14 different haplotypes for gree n turtles captured over ne arshore reefs in Indian River County. Haplotypes were from a mixed stock of nesting beaches from Florida, Mexico, Costa Rica,

and Aves Island.

Many researchers remark that the health condition of turtles captured or observ ed on NHB reefs typically is good and/or better than that of turtle populations residing in the Indian River and Mosquito Lagoon waters. Few animals from NHB study sites are a fflicted with fleshy tumors (manifestations of fibropapillomatosis, or FP disease) . None of the turtles captured in NHB waters in Brevard County have shown signs of the disease (Holloway-Adkins, 2005). Garrido (2007) did not sight any turtles on Palm Beach County reefs with the disease.

Foraging sample analysis for turtles in Brevard, Indian River, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties indicate that a large percentage of the juven ile green turtle diet consists of r ed algae, with lower percentages of the diet from green and brown algae ( Table 6.4 ). Relatively small amounts of invertebrate and inorganic food items (e.g., sand, shell, rock) were also found in foraging samples, and some samples contained pieces of plastic or other discarded marine debris.

Juvenile green turtles have frequently been sighted in Palm Beach County, resting under ledges on shallow NHB (Jones et al., 2004). They were easily captured by Makowski (2004) while tucked under and around ledges west of Breakers Reef and on low relief areas and shallow depressions in the reef.

6.2.2 Loggerhead Turtles

Large juvenile loggerhead turtles recruit from oceanic environments into shallow coastal waters at >45 cm SCL (Witherington et al., 2006b). Loggerheads freq uently have been captured during trawl events in areas north of the NHB region (i.e., Port Canaveral Inlet and shipping channel) (Schmid, 1995). They have also frequently been captured in the adjacent Indian River Lagoon system (Bresette et al., 2000). However, researchers infrequently sight or capture small size-class loggerheads in Brevard and Indian River County over shallow NHB habitats (Ehrhart et al., 2001; Holloway-Adkins and Provancha, 2005). Additionally, in St. Lucie County, juvenile loggerheads are systematically capt ured from the cool-water intake canals located in NHB (Ecological Associ ates, Inc., 2000). Juvenile loggerheads have been frequently observed foraging and resting on OHB in Palm Beach County (Mortimer, 1995).

Loggerheads are considered to be omnivores. They fo rage on a wide variety of invertebrates, including salps, molluscs, and crustaceans. They tend to f eed on more sessile organisms, many of which bury in soft bottom or sandy areas of reef and estuarine habitats.Section 2 6-10 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### Table 6.4. Macroalgal species present in foraging samples from various population studies conducted on

marine turtles on nearshore hardbottom habitat. ● denotes species presence.

Macroalgal Forage Species Gilbert (2005) –

Indian River HollowayAdkins (2001)

– Indian River HollowayAdkins (2005) – Brevard County Jones et al. (2004) – Palm

Beach Makowski (2004) –

Palm Beach Wershoven and

Wershoven (1992b) –

Broward

Acanthophora muscoides ●

Acanthophora spicifera ● ● ●

Agardhiella subulata ● ●

Amphiroa rigida ●
Asteromenia (Fauchea peltata) ●

Bostrichia sp. ●

Botryocladia occidentalis ●

Botryocladia sp. ●

Bryocladia cuspidata ● ●
Bryothamnion seaforthii ● ● ●

Bryothamnion sp. ● ●

Caulerpa mexicana ●
Caulerpa microphysa ●

Caulerpa peltata ●

Caulerpa prolifera ● ● ●

Caulerpa racemosa ● ●

Caulerpa taxifolia ●

Centroceras clavulatum ● ●

Ceramium sp. ● ● ● ●

Chaetomorpha linum ●

Chaetomorpha sp. ● ● ●
Chondria dasyphylla ●

Chondria sp. ● ● ●

Chondrocanthus acicularis ● ●

Cladophora catenata ●

Cladophora sp. ● ● ●

Codium sp. ●

Dascycladus vermicularis ●

Dasya pedicillata ●

Dasya sp. ●

Dictyopteris delicatula ●

Dictyopteris sp. ● ● ●

Dictyospareia sp. ●

Dictyota sp. ● ● ●

Dudresyna crassa ●

Erythrotrichia carnea ●

Eucheuma nudum ●

Gelidiaceae ●

Gelidiella sp. ●

Gelidium americanum ● ● ●

Gelidium pusillum ● ●

Gelidium sp. ● ● ●

Gracilaria armata ●

### Table 6.4. (Continued).

Section 2 6-11 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom

Macroalgal Forage Species Gilbert (2005) –

Indian River HollowayAdkins (2001)

– Indian River HollowayAdkins (2005) – Brevard County Jones et al. (2004) – Palm

Beach Makowski (2004) –

Palm Beach Wershoven and

Wershoven (1992b) –

Broward

Gracilaria blodgettii ●

Gracilaria mammillaris ● ● ● ●

Gracilaria sp. ● ● ●

Gracilaria tikvahiae ●

Gracilaria verrucosa ●

Halimeda discoidea ●

Halimeda sp. ●
Halymenia floresia ●

Hypnea cervicornis ●

Hypnea cornuta ●
Hypnea musciformis ●

Hypnea sp. ● ● ● ●

Hypnea spinella ●

Hypnea valentiae ●

Jania adherens ● ●

Jania sp. ● ●

Laurencia corallopsis ●
Laurencia gemmifera ●

Laurencia poiteaui ● ●

Laurencia sp. ●

Liagora sp. ●

Lomentaria baileyana ●

Neomeris annulata ●

Nitophyllum punctatum ●

Padina profunda ● ●

Padina sp. ● ●

Polysiphonia sp. ●

Polysiphonia subtilissima ●

Pterocladia sp. ●

Rhizoclonium sp. ●

Rhodymenia sp. ●
Sargassum sp. ● ●

Schizothrix arenaria ●

Schizothrix calcicola ●

Scinaia complanata ● ●

Scinaia sp. ●

Siphonocladus tropicus ●

Solieria sp. ● ●
Spyridia filamentosa ●

Ulva sp. ( Enteromorpha chaetomorphoides ) ●

Ulva sp. ( Enteromorpha sp.) ● ● ●

Ulva lactuca ●

Ulva sp. ● ● ●Section 2 6-12 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 6.2.3 Hawksbill Turtles

Except for stranding data and sightings by SCUBA divers, little is known about the distribution of hawksbill turtles on NHB. Wood (2006) began studying E. imbricata on reefs off Palm Beach County in 2004 and has captured over 100 hawksbills in water depths as shallow as 2 m and on deep reefs (>18 m) by SCUBA diving capture methods (L. Wood, in prep.). Based on SCL measurements (35.7 to 83.9 cm; mean 57.0 cm), this population is primarily composed of relatively large juvenile and subadult animals ( Figure 6.7 ). Preliminary DNA analyses indicate a majority of these turtles are representative of Mexican stocks. Though not systematically studied until recently, SCUBA divers have reported an abundance of hawksbills in the area for decades (N. Rouse [decea sed Divemaster, The Scuba Club, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL], personal dive logs; L. Wood, Palm Beach Zoo, pers. comm.).

Hawksbills are generally considered spongivores. Howeve r, a number of studies have shown their diet to be more varied than originally thought, and can include macroalgae, soft and hard corals, tunicates, jellyfishes and other small invertebrates that may or may not be associated with the sponges they commonly consume (Mayor et al., 1998; Leon, 2000; Leon and Bjorndal, 2002). Feeding observations conducted by L. Wood (Palm Beach Zoo, pers. comm. ) reveal that hawksbills actively select and consume pieces and/or portions of sponges. This fe eding behavior may play an important role in shaping the coral reef community and promoting the recolonization of sponges (Leon and Bjorndal, 2002). Jackson (1997) concluded that hawks bill turtles are keystone-like species in coral reefs systems.

Hawksbill turtles are frequently approachable. They can be found out in the open, as well as under ledges or resting near reef structures (coral heads , barrel sponges, etc.).

Figure 6.7. Juvenile hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) foraging on a tunicate wedged between the rocks on Nursery Reef, Pompano Beach, Flor ida (6 m water depth). A queen angelfish ( Pomacanthus sp.) and gray angelfish ( Holacanthus sp.) stood by, collecting scraps dropped by the hawksbill. Photo by K. Holloway-Adkins



### .Section 2 6-13 Organismal Assemblages of East Florida Shallow Hardbottom 

### 6.3 DISTURBANCE EVENTS AND TURTLES

6.3.1 Shoreline Project Disturbances

Juvenile green turtle abundance declined during su rveys conducted between pr e- and post-construction Broward County beach nourishment activities (Makowski and Kruempel, 2007). In one segment of the project area, green turtle abundance declined by 29.8% from pre-construction levels. In another segment, a 10.0% decline in turtle abundance was repor ted. Overall abundance level changes, however, were not statistically significant, and Prekel et al. (2007) suggest declines in abundance may be correlated with a temporary reduction in avail able macroalgae food resources. Third year post-nourishment biological monitoring surveys revealed that algae preferred by juvenile green turtles (based on foraging analysis from Wershoven and We rshoven, 1988 and Makowski et al., 2006a) were more abundant at 36-months post-construction. There appeared to be a temporary absence of turtles in the vicinity of a newly nourishe d section of beach in Indian River County in 2004. However, turtles returned to shallow subtidal areas shortly after water clarity was restored (K. Holloway-Adkins, ECB, pers. observ.). High turbidity levels from suspended sedi ments did not appear to affect foraging by juvenile green turtles, but excessive turbidity lik ely affects macroalgal food resources.

6.3.2 Red Tide Disturbances

Beginning in November 2007, red tide lingered onshore and offshore the east Florida coast for several weeks. FWRI (St. Petersburg) confirmed that red tide created from the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis

, which originally bloomed off the west coast of Florid a, was responsible for a ma jor fish kill and several

turtle deaths and sickness in Brevard and Volusia Counties. Over 30 juvenile green turtles were negatively affected by red tide events off the Brevard County coast (FWC personnel, pers. comm.). Many of the turtles that washed ashore during this event were transported to nearby rehabilitation facilities, and a few died. Loggerhead turtles succumbed to red tide toxicity and did not recover as well or as quickly as green turtles (M. Bauer, Volusia County Marine Scienc e Center, pers. comm.). Many loggerhead turtles washed up dead or were transported live to facilities but did not recover.

6.4 SUMMARY

Data indicate that predominantly green and hawksbill turtles are the most frequently encountered species and the ones that assume relatively long-term re sidency on NHB. These data and observations suggest that the developmental life stages of juvenile green and hawksbill turtles, in particular, are intimately tied to the NHB habitat. The mean population size and size -class range suggest that the smaller mean size turtles (20 to 42 cm) are obligately tied to certain habi tats within the NHB. At the very least, we are beginning to understand that juvenile green turt les are more susceptible to the debilitating fibropapillomatosis disease, which has been document ed to occur in extremely high levels (50% or greater) in estuaries, bays, and sounds around the worl d (Herbst and Klein, 1995). Nevertheless, juvenile green turtles may not be obligately tied to NHB, but ra ther it might be to their advantage to have access to

NHB for habitat.

To date, only one area has been assigned critical habitat status for green and hawksbill turtles (Culebra, Puerto Rico). At present, marine turtle nesting beaches have been afforded more protection than developmental habitat for turtles. While beaches are important, the intermediate life stage (juvenile) might well be the most key component to the persist ence and recovery of marine turtles (Bjorndal and Bolten, 2003). Until recently, we have attempted co nservation of marine turtles with a focus on the individual species. A more effective approach may be to gain better insight into the functional roles of different life-history stages of marine turtles an d adopt an approach that more strongly emphasizes ecosystem management with respect to all the habitats in which these animals are encountered (Costanza et al., 1997; Jackson et al., 2001; Bjorndal and Bolten, 2003).Section 3

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

# Section 3

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation AlternativesSection 3 7-1

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

# C h a p t e r 7

F u n c t i o n a l E c o l o g i c a l A t t r i b u t e s o f S h a l l o w H a r d b o t t o m

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The overarching goal of this synthe sis is to identify and provide sup porting evidence of the important functional attributes of NHB, IHB, and shallow OHB. In this chapter, information in the preceding Chapters 3 through 6 on species and assemblage composition, interactions, and diversity will be examined in relation to the following priority issues:

1. What are specific ecological functions of NHB? 2. What can happen to the coastal ecosystem (broader than NHB) when NHB is lost due to

nourishment? 3. Is OHB habitat able to ecologically compensate for the loss of NHB? 4. If the NHB habitat has specific properties and fu nctions that cannot be compensated for by existing OHB habitat, what are the best mitigation alte rnatives for the loss of natural NHB?

Richardson and Poloczanska (2008) examined tradit ional research approaches using functional groupings and individual species, pr eferring the latter. We recognize important roles for both approaches, depending on the starting objectives, and, given our objectives, will use both approaches according to topic. Advanced methods of examining functional roles using, for example, biological traits analysis (Bremner, 2008) may be of use in collective ex amination of NHB and deeper assemblages.

The total number of reliably recorded species of in vertebrates, fishes, algae, and other fauna from hardbottom from depths of 0 to approximately 4 m is at least 1,050 species along the mainland east Florida coast ( Chapters 3

, 4

, 5 , and 6 ). A total of 523 invertebrate species has been recorded to date. Among the most important invertebrates in te rms of abundance and ecological function is the tube-building sabellariid polychaete worm Phragmatopoma lapidosa , which engineers structure utilized by at least 200 species of decapod crustaceans alone (Gor e et al., 1978), many with direct or secondary trophic links to recreationally important fish specie s. However, the presence and significance of P. lapidosa declines south of Palm Beach County. The ar ray of other significant invertebrates is large

and includes Pione spp., Siderastrea spp., Menippe nodifrons

, Pachygrapsus spp. , Petrolisthes spp., Echinometra lucunter , and Synalpheus spp. The total number of fish species recorded is 257; several records await confirmation. The fish assemblage of NHB throughout the project region is a juvenile-dominated reef fish assemblage includi ng grunts, damselfishes, wrasses, porgies, blennies, snappers, and other families of reef-associated fishes.

The energetic functioning of NHB systems is in pa rt driven by diverse macroalgal assemblages that include 275 species. The total number of algae and cyanobacteria recorded includes 277 identified species, with 341 total types and species, including unidentified species ( Table 7.1 ). Of these, the rhodophytes (red algae) were most diverse, with 153 identified species. The most important species in terms of abundance and ecological function include Laurencia poiteaui, Caulerpa prolifera, Dictyota sp

., Caulerpa sertularioides, and Caulerpa racemosa

.Section 3 7-2

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Table 7.1. Total numbers of family, genera, and sp ecies of macroalgae associated with nearshore hardbottom habitat from studies along the east Florida coast (see Appendix A

, Table A.1 ).

Group Division Family Genera Species

Algae

Chlorophyta 10 20 59

Rhodophyta 30 62 153

Phaeophyta 9 15 48

Total algae 49 97 260

Cyanobacteria 8 11 17

Total number of species = 277; Total over all = 341 (includes unidentified types).



### 7.2 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONAL GROUPING

To structure the ecological complexity within shal low hardbottom, we organized the high diversity of species by identifying functional gro upings that characterize the use of shelter and trophic resources and comparing patterns among primary functional groups, taxa, and other system components. Knowledge of the parts and processes that compose the functional attr ibutes of shallow reef habitats in mainland east Florida is needed for management, but such effo rts are frequently confounded by the morass of terminological holes involving the term function (Jax, 2005; Chapter 1 , present study).

Many studies have historically focused on tw o basic categories of functional attributes: 1) structure-shelter and 2) feeding (trophic support). These groups can be useful as organizing steps in more detailed and measurable functional analyses such as traits analyses. Based on the literature on

NHB and the literature on functions a nd functional groups, we identified at least 12 nominal functional group categories in Chapters 1 through 6 that apply to NHB, IHB, and shallow OHB assemblages:

• Structure-shelter associated functional groupings . Examples include groups of species sharing one or more of the following attributes and associating with shallow hardbottom:

− Habitat engineering functions (keystone framework builder);

− Nesting and spawning site usage of NHB through OHB;

− Structure as attachment resource for sessile organisms;

− Settlement and post-settlement nursery areas; and

− Juvenile and adult patterns of cross-shelf distributions.

• Trophic functional groupings . Food capture patterns, larger energetic fluxes and physical dynamics drive food web dynamics (e.g., inter-community nut rient exchange functions of carnivores and herbivores on NHB and OHB [Parrish, 1989]), such as the following:

− Herbivory;

− Carnivory;

− Autotrophy;

− Detritivory and omnivory; and

− Cleaning symbioses.

These 10 categories do not contradict the function al analysis framework associated with mitigation planning employed by the UMAM protocol (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. et al., 2006). We also recognize that these are not entirely discrete gr oupings; there can be overlap among group processes and members, and also other attributes to emphasize. However, when synthetically evaluated for algae, invertebrates, fishes, and turtles, these groupings prov ide an heuristic structure that includes a majority of fundamental processes and functions of NHB, IHB, and shallow OHB.Section 3 7-3

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 7.2.1 Structure-Shelter Asso ciated Functional Groupings

Habitat and structure-associated processes influence most aspects of the life cycle of all shallow hardbottom organisms. The details of how spatial an d structural habitat attributes influence plant and animal distributions have rarely been studied for shallo w hardbottom systems of the region. Attributes of the nearshore seascape of mainland east Florida that are fundamental to nearshore marine habitats and their spatial relationships include the following:

• NHB habitats are often separated from deeper hardbo ttom by several or many kilometers of relatively flat sand expanses;

• North of Government Cut, Dade County, seagrass beds and mangroves are seen only in the lee of barrier islands and not in direct proximity to s hallow hardbottom. These vegetated habitats occur inside the inlets of the study area and are typically not in direct proximity with shallow hardbottom as in the Florida Keys and Caribbean. Therefore, NH B is the only physical structure with raised relief (0.5 to 3.0 m emergent height) in shallow waters of mainland east Florida (sand bedforms may have

relief of ≤ 0.5 m);

• These nearshore areas are disturbance-mediated by depth and latitude. For example, higher energy

nearshore wave environment exists north of t he Bahamas wave shadow where more temperate coastal conditions also become more apparent and in dividual species adaptation to wider ranges of physical conditions is important;

• Diversities of motile invertebrates correlate positively with the presence of P. lapidosa , while sessile organisms generally correlate negatively with the presence of P. lapidosa ; and

• The fish assemblages of shallow hardbottom in mainland east Florida are juvenile-dominated by species characteristic of co ral reef fish assemblages.

7.2.1.1 Habitat Engineers

In terms of functional group considerations th ere is a prominent keystone component of hardbottom habitats along the Florida coast in the form of the habitat engineering polychaete P. lapidosa and the carbonate structures they rapidly build, commonly know n as worm reefs or work rock. Worms of this sabellariid species select sediments from the wate r column and glue sand together to make sand tubes, forming substantial reefs in intertidal and shallow (< 4 m) subtidal hardbottoms from Cape Canaveral to Key Biscayne in Florida. Their distribution continue s southward to Santa Catarina, Brazil (Kirtley, 1994). Other representatives from their family (over 100 spec ies) build extensive reefs that can be found in many locations throughout the world (reviewed by Kirtley, 1994; Pandolfi et al., 1998).

In Florida, the structure provided by P. lapidosa worm reefs on top of coquina shellrock is a substantial contributor to biological diversity, supporting hi gher diversities and abundances of species, including hundreds of species of invertebrates (Gore et al ., 1978; Nelson, 1989), than neighboring sand habitats

and hardbottom without P. lapidosa colonization. Eight federally-lis ted and 15 state-listed species are

associated with nearshore reefs off east Florida (USFWS, 1999). Additionally, green, hawksbill, and loggerhead turtles, primarily represented by juven ile and subadult stages, are recorded in association with shallow hardbottom habitats. In particular, wo rm reefs are important sour ces of food and shelter for juvenile green turtles (Wershoven and Wersho ven, 1989; Ehrhart, 1992; Ehrhart et al., 1996; Holloway-Adkins, 2001; Makowski et al., 2006b).

Worm reefs can also be important in the maintenanc e and persistence of beaches and barrier islands by retention of sediment, reduction of wave energy, grain sorting, and t he progradation of beaches (Gram, 1965; Kirtley, 1966, 1967; Multer and Milliman, 1967; Kirtley and Tanner, 1968; Mehta, 1973; Kirtley, 1974; Pandolfi et al., 1998). P. lapidosa qualifies as a habitat engineer under criteria in Jones et al. (1994) and Coleman and Williams (2003) and has fast accretion rates (~0.5 cm per 24-hour period), with the potential to quickly create new structure with ma n y microhabitat features, particularly subsequent to

settlement events.Section 3 7-4

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 7.2.1.2 Nesting and Spawning Sites

Because many nearshore areas are expanses of sa nd in the absence of hardbottom, NHB may have substantial value as reference points for spawning acti vities of inshore fishes. Many fishes require three-dimensional structure as a reference point for coarse-scale aggregation and fine-scale behavior during spawning (Thresher, 1984). New information s uggests that over 30 specie s may spawn directly on (nests) or near these reefs. Some are of s ubstantial economic value; these include snook ( Centropomus

undecimalis ), bigeye scad ( Selar crumenophthalmus ), and several herring species ( Harengula spp.). Others, including small, cryptic species, especially blennies ( Labrisomus nuchipinnis, Malacoctenus triangulatus

, Parablennius marmoreus , and Scartella cristata ) and damselfishes ( Abudefduf saxatilis and Stegastes spp.) that deposit eggs directly on substratum, are common on NHB.

Most species of invertebrates are broadcast spawners or they release gametes or larvae directly on or above shallow hardbottom. This particularly applies for t he vast majority of sessile invertebrates in the project region, suggesting that at least 400 to 450 invertebrate species reproduce in association with shallow hardbottom. Reproduction in over 200 algal species also occurs in association with shallow

hardbottom.

7.2.1.3 Structure for Attachment

The hard substrata associated with NHB is essential in providing a point of attachment for many sessile animals and algae. Without the substrate, organisms such as worm rock, sponges, crabs, many algal species, site-associated fish species, and others simp ly would not have the resources to exist in these subtidal areas. Along the east Florida coast, hardbotto m facilitates worm rock recruitment, which in turn provides shelter for many motile invertebrates and fi shes (Kirtley, 1966, 1974: Gore et al., 1978; USFWS, 1999; McCarthy, 2001). Shelter is created not only by the external structure ma de by the worms but by the internal structure as well. The mounds created by P. lapidosa are relatively soft, and remarkable

numbers of some invertebrates can be found within the worm rock, as some species of crabs, bivalves,

and other worms are able to burrow in the rock to ta ke shelter (Gore et al., 1978; Van Montfrans, 1981; Nelson and Demetriades, 1992). Other species such as snapping shrimp and sea cucumbers are seen using previously made crevices or holes. Overall, shelter inside the worm rock hosts flat worms, ribbon worms, sipunculans, many crustaceans, bivalves, and gastropods that would not exist in similar diversities or individual abundances in simple coquina rock hardbottom habitats.

Hay and Sutherland (1988) emphasized the role of light in structuring rocky marine communities in the southeast U.S., with well-lit structure often dominated by algae and unlit areas by invertebrates. This pattern may generically apply to shallow hardbottom of ma inland east Florida, but it is not yet tested. The high diversities of algae would not exist without substrat e for over 200 species to attach to. A variety of opportunities for intertidal and subtidal research into rocky intertidal processes involving invertebrates, algae, and their interactions remain relatively unexamined in association with shallow hardbottom of east

Florida.

In addition to providing essential functions for nume rous fishery species, bioerosion of hardbottom provides a source of new microhabitat and sand on t he continental shelf (Riggs et al., 1985). Boring and burrowing shrimp and bivalves chemically or mechani cally excavate holes, eventually weakening the rock; clionid sponges and rock-boring urchins do this as well. This habitat engineering manifests itself in differing ways. For example, crabs bore into worm mounds, and the synergistic effect of these boring organisms is high when coupled with natural disturbances such as wave activity. These all contribute to worm reef degradation and an increase in structural co mplexity by late summer/e arly fall. This process also enhances the structural complexity of hardbottom outcrops, promoting diversity of reef microhabitat

structure.Section 3 7-5

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 7.2.1.4 Settlement and Post-settlement Nursery Areas

Invertebrates

It is probable that most of the motile invertebrate s that settle on intertidal and shallow hardbottom along the coast ultimately die in the same areas that they settle. Many species that thrive in these shallow habitats ( P. lapidosa

, Pione lampa , and Siderastrea radians ) become sexually mature very young and reproduce continuously (Soong, 1993; McCarthy, 2001; Schönberg, 2002; McCarthy et al., 2003). Most research on gastropods and crustaceans suggests that animals settle there and live a maximum of 2 to 3 years because of the ephemeral nature of thes e habitats (Gore et al., 1978; McCarthy, 2001; Watanabe, 2002; Watanabe and Young, 2006). For example, the oyster drill Stramonita (Thais)

haemostoma has a population size distribution that gets prog ressively larger from fall to winter (but never as big as their oyster drill counter parts within the Indian River Lagoon) until seasonal disturbance results in high mortality by late summer (Watanabe, 2002; Watanabe and Young, 2006). However, they have adapted by becoming reproductively active faster than their lagoonal counterparts so that they can lay eggs before they die and produce a new cohort seemi ngly to maintain the population. Consequently, these new recruits settle in high numbers and shift the population distribution size back to smaller modal

sizes.

High mortality of P. lapidosa mounds is common in some NHB areas of east-central Florida and increases during the summer as a result of the effects of seve ral disturbance agents (McCarthy, 2001). In the early summer, some individuals at the tops of intertidal m ounds perish, leaving the tops susceptible to decay and colonization by other sessile organisms. It is likel y that this mortality is caused by desiccation and/or heat stress from extreme summer temperatures. By the late summer and early autumn, wave activity from hurricanes results in maximum physical disturb ance to sabellariid reefs. A large percentage of both intertidal and subtidal reefs are severely damaged at th is time. Intertidal worms are more susceptible to physical destruction of their colonies, whereas subtidal worms get smothered by sand but the sand reef remains intact. In addition, post-hurricane deposition of muddy sediment can kill attached invertebrates and prevent settlement (CSA International, Inc., 2007; Miller and Kosmynin, 2008).

Almost simultaneously with peaks in le thal disturbance, however, larvae of P. lapidosa arrive in large numbers to renew the reef by massive recruitm ent in cracks, atop, or on edges of adult mounds (McCarthy, 2001). Generally, recruitment occurs at the highest levels in the intertidal versus subtidal zone ( Figure 7.1 ). McCarthy (2001) suggests that subti dal recruitment may be enhanced during periods of increased wave activity. Preliminary results from an ongoing study suggest that among five intertidal locations along a 218-km stretch of east Florida (Satellite Beach, Stuart, Coral Cove, Palm Beach, Boynton Beach), during the years from 2006 to present, P. lapidosa recruited at the highest levels in Stuart, followed by Satellite Beach. However, at all five locations, peak larv al recruitment appears to occur during the fall-winter time periods. Consequently, recruitment during this time results in new low-lying reefs that are highly resilient and will eventually restore the struct ure of the reefs. As

disturbance lowers adult abundance and creates new settlement space, new individuals potentially can arrive in sufficient numbers to restore the populations. Therefore, local populations may remain at fairly high abundances year after year while experiencing moderately high mortality from various agents of disturbance (McCarthy, 2001; Figure 7.1 ), a pattern seen in some interti dal organisms in the Pacific U.S.

When this P. lapidosa colonization information is integrated with those of other researchers (Gilmore, 1977; Gilmore et al., 1981; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999), links are suggested between the seasonal cycle of sabellariid reef expansion and degradation, and the occupation of those reefs by juveniles and adults of other organisms.Section 3 7-6

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation AlternativesRecruits m-2d-1



### 1e-1 1e+0 1e+1 1e+2 1e+3 1e+4 1e+5



## Month and Year J J ASOND J FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAM 1 10 100 1000 10000 

## Intertidal habitat

Subtidal habitat

1998 1999 2000 1997

Figure 7.1. Seasonal larval recruitment of the sabellariid worm Phragmatopoma lapidosa in intertidal and subtidal nearshore hardbottom habitats off Boyn ton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Mean values (± standard deviation) of recruitment are plotted on log scales. All subtidal sites covered with sand after May 1999 (From: McCarthy, 2001).Section 3 7-7

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Some biological information on ephemeral exposure of NHB is available in regards to short-term P. lapidosa tolerance to sand covering. These worms typically have some tolerance to limited sand covering for short periods of time, up to 72 hours in various studies (Main and Nelson, 1988; Sloan and Irlandi, 2007). After this time period, most individual worms die. Mortality occurs earlier during warmer periods. Scleractinian corals (e.g., Siderastrea radians ) have been recorded growing on seasonally buried NHB (V. Kosmynin, FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, pers. comm.). Care should be exercised in averaging NHB exposu re over multiple years for beach nourishment projects. The majority of beaches and nearshore sedimentary sy stems have been exposed to several renourishments or have been indirectly affected by long-shore drift. To best capture natural situations and away-fromnourishment effects, photoimagery is best taken right before dredge and fill events when aerial resources are available and visibility allows (V. Kosmynin, FD EP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, pers. comm.).

On hardbottom deeper than 4 m, the degree of disturbance is likely less; there is evidence that this may correlate with the presence of longer-lived inverteb rate species (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. observ.). Ther e appears to be a higher number of sessile species that take longer to become sexually mature and reproduce seasonally. It is unclear how much movement there is of motile invertebrates among hardbotto ms within this depth range. Ho wever, spiny lobster clearly move long distances among hardbottom habitats, as seen in the Florida Keys and Bahamas (Kanciruk and Herrnkind, 1978) (see Section 7.2.1.5 ).

Fishes

In terms of ecological function, several lines of evid ence suggest that NHB reefs may serve as significant settlement areas in shallow marine waters from Broward through Brevard Counties. The following summary of fishes is based on information avail able for mainland southeast and east central Florida (Gilmore et al., 1981; Lindeman, 1997a; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004), with some papers including life stage-specific abundance data. Pooled early life stages can represent over 80% of the total individuals at sites censused ( Figure 5.6 ). Eight of the top 10 most abundant species were consistently represented by early stages. Use of hardbottom habitats was recorded for newly settled stages of more than 20 species. Some species have characteristic settlement microhabitats in which they can differentially aggregate while undergoing tr ansformation from epibenthic larvae into demersal juvenile stages. Microhabitat adaptation in newly settled drums ( Pareques spp., Sciaenidae) can involve the occurrence of triangularity, for example in the frontal and lateral profiles of individual larvae, the crevices between rock and coarse sand they typica lly utilize, and the outer boundary shapes of schools that settlers can form ( Figure 7.2 ).

Figure 7.2. Newly settled drums ( Pareques species) commonly associate with ledges and triangular cavities at the base of shallow hardbottom structures, such as in this photograph taken from 2 m depth, Singer Island, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 3 7-8

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### The presence of more juvenile stages than adults does not guarantee a habitat is a valuable nursery (Adams et al., 2006). Rapid decays in the benthic or pl anktonic survival of early stages of marine fishes are common demographic patterns (Shulman and Og den, 1987; Jones, 1991), ensuring that if distributions are homogeneous, all habitats will have more early stages than adults. Settlement and early life stage utilization of shallow hardbottom has been studi ed in more detail in recent years, in part due to artificial reef placement in IHB and OHB depths. De spite substantial sampling efforts in deeper waters, many species of grunts are not encountered as earl y stages in midshelf or deepter reef habitats (e.g., Jordan et al., 2004). Adults are often infrequent or absent from the s hallow habitats. There is considerable evidence for habitat segregation among life stages of some species, with the earliest stages of many species of grunts and snappers often using the shallower habitats (Starck, 1970; Dennis, 1992; Lindeman et al., 1998; Jordan et al., 2004). Similar ontogenetic differences in both distribution and abundance exist for diverse species from other famili es that utilize NHB habitats. Based on available information, we estimate that at least 40 fish species utilize NHB as a primary or secondary larval settlement area, many (but not all) with seasonal peaks in warmer months (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004).

In mainland east Florida, NHB may also serve as inte rmediate nursery habitat for late juveniles emigrating out of estuaries (Vare, 1991; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). This appears to also apply to some fishes

from hardbottom to the north. Nearshore and inner shelf hardbottom areas north of Cape Canaveral can also serve as important settlement and nursery habitat for immigrating larvae of coastal fish species. Powell and Robbins (1998) collected larvae from 22 reef-associated families adjacent to hardbottom habitat in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Tomtate ( Haemulon aurolineatum ), white grunt ( H. plumieri ), snappers (including vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens ), black sea bass ( Centropristis striata ), bank sea bass ( C. ocyurus ), sand perch ( Diplectrum formosum ), spottail pinfish ( Diplodus holbrooki ), and whitebone porgy ( Calamus leucosteus ) were commonly collected (SAFMC, in prep.). These species may have been spawned in Onslow Bay in somewhat deeper water and recruited locally to nearshore hardbottom (Powell and Robbins, 1998; SAFMC, in prep.).

7.2.1.5 Juvenile and Adult Cross-shelf Distributions

The vast majority of invertebrate species do not migrat e or shift habitats from shallow hardbottom. Some motile exceptions may include portunid crabs, spiny lobster, and squids, but there is not a great deal of invertebrate migration between NHB and neighboring habitats. The polychaete P. lapidosa generally has higher abundance intertidally than subtid ally along east Florida hardbottoms ( Figure 7.1 ). It is moderately abundant in subtidal NHB and somewhat common in IHB. Generally, P. lapidosa is in very low abundance or not encountered in nearshore OHB along the east Florida coast.

Spiny lobster, primarily known from NHB in Indian River and St. Lucie Counties, clearly move long distances from shallow to deep habitats, as seen in the Florida Keys and Bahamas (Kanciruk and Herrnkind, 1978). Spiny lobsters have been observed moving along 4 m reef at Boynton in chains of ~15 (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. obser v.). Within that area of the coast, there were probably hundreds on the move heading northward . Mass migrations (referred to as “crawls” by locals) by large numbers of spiny lobsters occurs typically in late summer early fall along the coast of southeast Florida. Single-file lines of individual lobsters move presumably from offshore areas toward the shore where they seek cover around any structured object (natural or artificial). Kanciruk and Herrnkind (1978) determined that mass migration in the Bahamas wa s triggered by the onset of cold fronts. At least one mass migration in 1980 off Palm Beach, Flori da was associated with a cold water upwelling event (D. Snyder, CSA Internati onal, Inc., pers. observ.).

Damselfishes and cryptic hardbottom fish species do not engage in ontogenetic habitat shifts. Juveniles

of sch ooling species (surgeonfishes, parrotfishes , chubs) may migrate away from NHB to deeper
structural habitats with maturation, but depth-specific information is largely unavailable among these habitats. The ability to successfully make such migr ations will correlate in complex manners with the degree to which cross-shelf habitat corridors are avail able and, also, drivers associated with potential ontogenetic shifts in food needs. Cryptic resident s pecies do not appear to migrate further offshore with development, displaying no cross-shelf ontogenetic migrations. They are life-long residents of the NHB,Section 3 7-9

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### IHB, or shallow OHB structure that they settle on and display feeding modes from herbivory to probable piscivory. A variety of other species (e.g ., wrasses, grunts, snappers, sciaenids, mullids, S. rubripinne ) may sample other habitats with age and eventually emigrate; presumably survival will be very dependent on the habitat and predator seascape, both while tr aveling and eventually on entering new habitat.

Juvenile marine turtles off Florida coastal waters are predominantly found associated with NHB habitats. Recapture data and tracking information from populati on studies suggest that turtles spend several years in neritic habitats (Ehrhart et al., 2001; Makow ski et al., 2006b). Juvenile green turtles have been recaptured on the same NHB reef locations more than 9 years later (Ehrhart, unpubl. data). Studies in NHB habitat indicate that juvenile green turtles grow slower in NHB versus estuarine habitats (Kubis, 2003); however, the costs of slow growth may be offset by relatively lower predation levels due to higher structural complexity offering better protection from predators.

7.2.2 Trophic Functional Groupings

7.2.2.1 Herbivory

Invertebrate herbivory on macro- and micro-al gae may be high among the diverse array of plants associated with shallow hardbottom. In various temp erate rocky intertidal studies, over 50 species of shallow hardbottom or rocky intertidal invert ebrates have been reported to feed on macro- and microalgae ( Appendix D

, Table D.1 ). Some of the same macroalgal genera are found on Florida NHB ( Acanthophora

, Bryopsis

, Ceramium

, Chondria

, Codium

, Dictyota , and Sargassum ) and are likely grazed on by fish and invertebrate herbivores. Vertebrate grazing analyses from juvenile green turtle foraging samples (Holloway-Adkins, 2001) and herbivorous fishes (Randall, 1967) indicate Ceramium sp., Ulva

sp., Polysiphonia sp., Lyngbya sp., Centroceras sp., and Dictyota sp., are primary food items for these animals ( Appendix D

, Tables D.2 and D.3 ).

Along east Florida hardbottom there are a number of echinoids that may be important herbivores. The most significant are Echinometra lucunter, Tripneustes ventricosus , and Arbacia punctulata . They are generally most abundant to the north of Palm Beach County at depths in excess of 1 m and occur in highly variable densities that can range as high as ~25 individuals /m 2 

### and likely exert substantial herbivory affects on marcoalgae and sessile invertebrates in the areas where they occur. Other

echinoids such as Diadema antillarum, Lytechinus variegatus , and Eucidaris tribuloides are herbivores but probably do not exert the same influence over ma croalgal communities because of their generally low

abundance.

Many reef fish herbivores occur in association wi th NHB and include the surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), parrotfishes (Scaridae), porgies (Sparidae), and ch ubs (Kyphosidae); most of these families are represented largely by juvenile life stages on NHB, but can occur as adults (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999; Baron et al., 2004). Non-schooling herbivores on NHB include the damselfishes (five species), filefishes (Monacanthidae), spiny puffers (Diodontidae), presumably all gobiids, and several blennids (Randall, 1967). In NHB environments, herbivores represented relatively few fish species ( Figure 5.11 ), but these can be locally abundant and may have some impacts on macroalgal biomass, though this is unstudied.

There can be substantial ontogenetic variation in feed ing among some species. For example, the silver porgy ( Diplodus argenteus ), a very abundant sparid on NHB, is probably omnivorous like its closely related congener, the spottail pinfish ( D. holbrooki ). The latter species was found to eat both algae and macroinvertebrates by Hay and Sutherland (1988) in a st udy of rocky jetty-type stru ctures in Murell’s Inlet,

South Carolina. Carr and A dams (1972) documented that D. holbrooki fed upon ectoparasites and were

therefore considered to be cleaners. Juveniles of D. argenteus have been observed cleaning larger fishes in NHB environments (D. Snyder, CSA International, Inc., pers. observ.).

Juvenile green turtles preferentially feed on several al gal species from a larger pool of available algae ( Appendix D

, Table D.3 ). High wave energy not only strongly influences the product ion of macroalgae, but also can reduce grazer accessib ility, especially in intertidal and shallow subtidal sections of NHB and IHB. This species may be more abundant where co mpetition from herbivorous fish and invertebrateSection 3 7-10

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### species is reduced (e.g., the northern project region with cooler waters). Macroalgal resources, in turn, may be more abundant for several reasons, including c ooler water temperatures, higher nutrient levels, and, potentially, a lower abundance and diversity of grazers.

7.2.2.2 Carnivory

Invertivory

Crustaceans are often very important predators upon invertebrates within shallow hardbottom food webs along the east Florida coast. Some crustaceans can also feed on small fishes. Gore et al. (1978) postulated a possible food web for sabellariid coloni es on the east Florida coast where the worms form the basis of the food web on which many species of reef-dwelling crabs forage ( Figure 7.3 ).

Figure 7.3. Food web among six common decapod crus taceans from worm reefs. Numbers on lines indicate the percent of observed prey materi al in the guts of all individuals examined per species. Dashed lines indicate production from worm reef ( Phragmatopoma lapidosa ) (From: Gore et al., 1978).

There is a high diversity and abundance of infaunal invertebrates within soft sediments adjacent to east

Florida NHB. Within the intertidal and shallow subt idal zones, there are various crustaceans, molluscs, bivalves, and polychaetes that can be very abundant. Mole crabs ( Emerita talpoida ) and various Donax spp. are often most conspicuous. Howeve r, several species of polychaetes such as Nephtys bucera and Scolelepis squamata are common in these habitats as well. Progressing into deeper sand bottom areas (~3 m water depths), the polychaetes Dispio uncinata and Paraonis sp. and the bivalve Tellina sp. are very dominant. However, amphipods, caridean shrimp , portunid crabs, gastropods, and bivalves can also be encountered. Some threatened coastal bird spec ies feed on intertidal invertebrates and can exchange energy between the upper beachface and the NHB, or the coastal ocean and NHB. Species include herons, egrets, plovers, brown pelicans, and others (Bishop et al., 2006).

Many demersal fish species may migrate further into adjacent sand areas in search of food as they mature, and they can exchange large amounts of nutrient s in these often nocturnal migrations (Parrish, 1989). Meyer et al. (1983) provides a specific ex ample of intercommunity energy exchange and growthSection 3 7-11

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### impacts for grunts in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Ol der life stages of grunts and other species on NHB may be engaging in sand feeding migrations at night, exchanging energy between reef and softbottom environments. In addition, coastal pelagics can transp ort energy into and out of the system via transient usage of NHB and IHB structure.

The majority of the approximately 200 fish species re corded from NHB through OHB in east Florida feed on invertebrates, first as zooplanktivorous larvae and via an explosion of diversity in invertebrate consumption with maturation among reef fishes ( Figure 7.4 ). There are often large variations in prey composition among differing life stages. Detailed st udies on trophic ecological process of shallow

invertebrates and fishes of Florida NHB are lacking, therefore constraining analyses.

Planktivory and Suspension Feeding

A number of sessile invertebrates encountered along east Florida hardbottoms are suspension feeders. Within the intertidal sections of the NHB, P. lapidosa and several barnacle species are the most commonly encountered. From subtidal NHB to OHB, P. lapidosa can be abundant in shallower depths, but a number of sponge and tunicate species become more prevalent. Additional suspension feeders encountered in these habitats are sabellid and serpulid polychaetes, several species of bivalves, and decapods such as porcellanid crabs.

At least 30 fish species associated with NHB can be classifed as planktivorous. Common planktivores found on NHB including herrings ( Harengula spp., Opisthonema oglinum ), sardines ( Sardinella aurita ), and scads ( Decapterus spp., Selar crumenophthalmus ) tend to form large schools and frequently move within local areas. Many fishes are planktivorous as newly settled or early juvenile individuals (haemulids, reef sciaenids) but change diets with ontogeny. Silver porgy and spottail pinfish are examples of species that shift from planktivory as young to omnivory as adults (Carr and Adams, 1972). Grunts such as French grunt and tomtate are obligat e planktivores as newly settled individuals but gradually switch to demersal carnivory as they grow. Observations on NHB in Palm Beach County indicate that larger juveniles of the these specie s will opportunistically feed on plankton when directional currents are strong and presumably carrying greater q uantities of plankton over the NHB. Given the high proportion of early stage fishes found on NHB, plan ktivory represents an important trophic element of the local system that is subsidized by the import of pl ankton from the broader scale coastal waters. At present nothing is known regarding the diversity, com position, or temporal oc currence of the planktonic prey base in NHB environments.

7.2.2.3 Autotrophy

Cyanobacteria and macroalgae, the primary produc ers in marine ecosystems, convert sunlight and nutrients into assimilable energy used by primary consumers. These photosynthetic cohorts specialize in the ability to convert abiotic material (carbon) and li ght into food. Macroalgae utilize both nutrients and carbon dioxide and are able to fix nitrogen, and many species of cyanobacteria also can fix nitrogen (Vermaas, 2001). Primary animal autotrophs in this system are the zooxanthellae-bearing sceleractinians. In addition to autotrophic production, these species have multiple ecological functions as shelter and direct food resources (Banks et al., 2008). While primary production is the foundation of the trophic food pyramid, the importance of maintaining bala nced trophic levels in marine systems, especially coral reefs, is high (e.g., Paddack et al., 2006). Overgrowth of coral reefs by macroalgae due to Figure 7.4. Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus , pursuing invertebrate prey, Breakers Reef, approximately 6 m depth, Palm Beach,

Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .Section 3 7-12

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### increased nutrient input or a significant reduction of primary consumers by over fishing can have large, well-documented impacts on coastal food webs (Jackson et al., 2001).

There may be a generally higher biomass of macroal gae in the more northern sections of hardbottom along the east Florida coast. The exact reasons for this trend are unclear. The Florida Current may

contribute to this trend because its coastal influence decreases towards the nort h. Consequently, there are cooler waters and possibly higher upwelled nutrients in the more northern hardbottom areas along the coast. More nutrients may provide important resources to increase algal biomass. Additionally, towards the south there may be a higher diversity and abundance of herbivorous fishes that may affect macroalgal production in those areas, thus creating space for otherwise substrate-limited organisms (i.e., corals). These and other alternatives are ripe for empirical investigation.

7.2.2.4 Detritivory and Omnivory

Many detritivores in association with NHB are om nivorous. In marine food webs, detritivores play important roles as recyclers in ecosystem energy fl ow and biogeochemical cycles. A number of motile

invertebrates found on shallow hardbottom are known to feed on detritus, although no known studies have specifically investigated invertebrate detritivory on NHB. Most known invertebrate detritivores found on Florida NHB are polychaetes or crustaceans, alt hough some gastropods and echinoderms are likely to

feed on detritus as well. The Gore et al

. (1978) trophic web for worm reef areas suggested that the highly

abundant crustacean Pachycheles monilifer was abundant in shallow hardbottom habitats because of its omnivorous diet that includes detritus in suspen sion. They also suggested that various amphipods, isopods, molluscs, and sponges gain nutrition from suspended detritus.

There are a number of motile invertebrates and some fish species on NHB that can be considered

omnivores. Most omnivorous invertebrates are crustaceans, and several are very abundant. A number of xanthid, portunid, and hermit crabs and shrimp can be omnivorous. Slipper, spiny, and spotted spiny lobster are omnivores that are also common in subtidal NHB, IHB, and OHB. Some molluscs (e.g., a few gastropods and cephalopods) can be omnivorous as we ll. As adults, omnivorous species of fishes include chubs ( Kyphosus species), filefishes and puffers, all gobi ids, and several blennioids. When whole ontogeny is considered, some species are relatively omnivorous, feeding on plankton not only as larvae

but sometimes for a week or more after settlement (e.g., haemulids, some sciaenids, pempherids).

7.2.2.5 Cleaning Symbioses

Cleaning behavior is defined as the removal by a cl eaning organism of ectoparasites or injured tissue from a host or client organism. In marine environ ments, shrimp and fishes are the primary taxa that engage in cleaning behavior. Despite the many exam ples of cleaning behavior, only a few species are obligate cleaners, whereas most of the facultative cleaners do so only as juveniles (e.g., Hobson, 1971; Poulin and Grutter, 1996; Sazima et al., 1999). Hobson believed that only certain individuals of some species clean and that cleaning behavior is widespread among small species that pick organisms from the

substrate or water column.

Examples of fish species re corded from shallow hardbottom

that act as facultative cleaner s include the young of leatherjack ( Oligoplites saurus ) (Lucas and Benkert, 1983), spottail pinfish ( Diplodus holbrooki ) (Carr and Adams, 1972), porkfish ( Anisotremus virginicus ) (Longley and Hildebrand, 1941), angelfishes ( Pomacanthus spp. and Holacanthus spp.) (Brockmann and Hailman, 1976), and the wrasses (Feitoza et al., 2002). Cleaning behavior can frequently be observed on NHB, with cleaners including juv enile angelfishes, wrasses, gobies, porkfish, and silver porgy (D. Snyder, CSA International, Inc., pers. observ.). Figure 7.5 shows a juvenile Figure 7.5. A juvenile French angelfish ( Pomacanthus paru ) cleaning an adult gray triggerfish ( Balistes capriscus ) in 4 m depth off
Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder.Section 3 7-13

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### angelfish cleaning a gray triggerfish on NHB near Palm Beach, Florida. Baron et al. (2004) included nine species of known cleaners during their Broward Co unty study. Lindeman and Snyder (1999) encountered six known cleaning species in the Jupiter area. Shrimp known to be cleaners, including Stenopus hispidus

, S. scutelous

, Lysmata spp., and Periclimenes pedersoni , do inhabit NHB (D. Snyder [CSA International, Inc.] and D. McCart hy [Jacksonville University, Jac ksonville, FL], pers. comm.); however, none were recorded during the sampling programs discussed in Chapter 4

.

7.3 LATITUDINAL COMPARISONS

Sessile invertebrate communities change noticeably with latitude along the east Florida coast. In intertidal hardbottoms to the north, dominant invert ebrates are bryozoans, sabellariid polychaetes, sea anemones, and tunicates ( Chapter 4 ). North of Palm Beach County, there is an increase in abundance

of P. lapidosa

, both intertidally and subtidally. Throughout ti dal pools within intertidal areas of these latitudes, the starlet coral Siderastrea radians, two species of zoanthids, and several species of solitary

anemones can be encountered. Within the lower in tertidal and shallow subtidal zones, the most conspicuous sponge is the rock-boring sponge Pione lampa . In the more northern counties that have subtidal hardbottom (i.e., Brevard and Indian River), sponges, two species of gorgonians ( Leptogorgia virgulata and L. hebes ), and one species of telestacean ( Carijoa [ Telesto ] riisei ) can be encountered. In this area, the most significant hard corals are Siderastrea and the Oculina species. However, there are

occasional occurrences of Cladocora arbuscula , and grouped polyps of Phyllangia and Astrangia spp. (Brooke and Young, 2005). Within Martin County, the St. Lucie Inlet Reef appears to be the northernmost extent of several of the reef-building corals that are known biodiversity contributors.

To the south, the diversity and abundance of antho zoans increase on subtidal hardbottoms (SFCREMP, 2007; Beal, unpublished data). The geological or igins of Broward’s NHB have some different characteristics than northern areas (Moyer et al., 2003; Banks et al., 2008). Unlike counties to the north, Broward County possesses a nearshore ridge complex inside the inner reef line that has a complicated array of depth strata. The shallowest prominent scleractinians in the 3 to 7 m depth range include

Solenastrea bournoni

, Diploria clivosa

, Dichocoenia stokesii , and the staghorn coral, Acropora

cervicornis (Moyer et al., 2003; Vargas-Angel et al., 2003; SFCREMP, 2007). The potential biological significance of these latitudinal differences for s hallow hardbottom communities has not been formally evaluated for any invertebrate species to date.

Differences among ichthyofaunal assemblages are su ggested between the southern and northern areas of mainland southeast and east-central Florida in terms of the most abundant species ( Chapter 5 ), but

informatio n remains relatively limited. Causes of the differences can include 1) differing amounts and types of shallow hardbottom among sections of southeast Florida and east-central Florida and 2) differences in northern geographic distributional boundaries among some highly abundant species.

There are notable differences in abundance between three of the most abundant species in the Jupiter area in comparison to the Fort Lauderdale area. On ly one black margate out of >72,000 individuals was recorded in Fort Lauderdale (Baron et al., 2004), whil e 636 black margates out of 10,491 individuals were censused in Lindeman and Snyder (1999). Also, 43 sailors choice, Haemulon parra, were recorded in Baron et al. (2004), while 1,326 H. parra individuals were recorded in Lindeman and Snyder (1999). The hairy blenny was the most abundant cryptic hardbottom sp ecies in the Jupiter surveys, 8% of the overall individual total (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999); none we re recorded in transect and point-counts in Fort Lauderdale (Baron et al., 2004). Numbers of the abundant porgies, Diplodus spp., were also much lower. Seasonality of sampling will be important as comparative information is examined further.

The latitudinal distribution of marine turtles associated with NHB is unclear at this time. General patterns, however, indicate that loggerhead turtles are sparse ly present in northern NHB (Brevard and Indian River Counties) and moderately present on deeper reefs in southern NHB (Palm Beach County). Visual transect survey data indicate that juvenile green turtles are more abundant in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas than in deeper subtidal areas, and ha wksbill turtles are infrequently encountered north of Palm Beach County.Section 3 7-14

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 7.4 DISTURBANCE ECOLOGY

Disturbance has been defined in several ways (see S ousa, 2001 for a review). It is often defined as damage or mortality that is caused by some external agent or force. This agent can be either physical (e.g., wave activity) or biological (e.g., predation) (S ousa, 2001). Disturbance may be lethal, resulting in the death of the animal, or it may a sublethal stress that reduces the potential fo r growth or reproduction of an organism. Obviously, any distur bance can affect reproduc tion if it kills the animal before it has the chance to reproduce. Sublethal disturbance can also influence reproduction by affecting the available energy an animal has for reproduction. Several correlative studies on marine invertebrates have shown negative relationships between fecundity and external stress factors such as sedimentation, wave activity, and turbidity (Kojis and Quinn, 1984; Jokiel, 1985; Rinkevich and Loya, 1987; Tomascik and Sander, 1987; Szmant and Gassman, 1990; Van Veghel and Bak, 1993; Ward, 1995).

Nonlethal disturbance might affect gamete production by diverting energy to regeneration of body parts (Lawrence and Vasquez, 1996). Such disturbance is known to occur to individuals by a variety of mechanisms, including unsuccessful predation attemp ts, trampling by humans or other animals, or the impact of objects propelled by waves (see Sousa, 2001 for a review). Stress caused by changes in several environmental factors has been implicated in numerous studies of spawning and/or gametogenic synchrony in marine invertebrates (Young, 1945; see Giese and Kanatani, 1987 for a review). Several

studies of nonlethal disturbance hav e revealed that polychaetes regener ating damaged or lost body parts have lower fecundity and increased time to maturity than their undamaged counterparts (Hill and Grassle, 1981; Hill et al., 1982; Zajac, 1985).

Nonlethal disturbance could also affect the frequency of spawning of animals and plants. Barry (1989) suggested that disturbance might affect seasonal spawning patterns of Phragmatopoma californica because lethal disturbance genera lly breaks tubes, facilitating a known spawning response. Young (1945) observed increased spawning frequency with incr eased stress on the byssal threads of the mussel Mytilus edulis

.

Spawning in individuals of detached mounds of P. lapidosa rolling around in the surf zone has been observed (J. Pawlik, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, NC, pers. comm.) Additionally, stress caused by changes in water pressure, desiccation, temperature, wave action, and salinity have been implicated in numerous studies of spawning and/or gametogenic synchrony of populations of marine invertebrates (see Giese and Kanatani, 1987 for a review). Differences in disturbance between habitats could affect fecundity differences between intertidal and subtidal individuals. Disturbance events that result in mortality can be very important in affecting the community of sessile organisms in a given area. On one end of the spectrum, high intensity and/or frequent disturbances such as wave activity can result in either no individuals in an area or very low numbers and diversities of organisms. In such cases, only the most morphologically adapted organisms such as li mpets or chitons may be present. Moderate levels of disturbance may serve to mediate the effects of competition and result in the highest diversity of organisms (Levin and Paine, 1974). Such frequent disturbances may reduce the effectiveness of some opportunistic species from utilizing all available substrat e space. The availability of such available space can then be colonized by other species if they can to lerate the level of disturbance in the area. In locations with lower intensity or less frequent di sturbances, there is a tendency for lower diversity because a competitive dominant occupies most of t he available substrate. During these competitive interactions, the size of substrate spaces created by di sturbance is also important in terms of the type of organisms that occupy the space, and the time that it takes for the space to become fully utilized (see Sousa, 2001 for a review). Generally, larger “patches” of substrate space tend to be occupied more by sexually (versus asexually) reproducing species. These patches often take longer to become fully re-colonized. However, the time of colonization by sexual reproducers depends on how often these species spawn and the number of larvae they produce. In contrast, smaller patches tend to be colonized more quickly by asexually reproduc ing species (tunicates, corals, macr oalgae) if they are present on the fringes of the patch.Section 3 7-15

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 7.5 OBLIGATE AND FACULTATIVE HABITAT USE

Certain species such as P. lapidosa may be limited to NHB (some in IHB) because of the need for substrate to settle and on the turbulent hydrodynamic r egime that aids tube building and feeding that is primarily found in these depths. Most other inve rtebrate species can be foun d on NHB, IHB, and OHB, although their proportions likely vary. A number of t hose invertebrates that take shelter within or eat worm rock may be considered obligate to P. lapidosa , but further empirical evidence is required. Hardbottom substrata provide attachment sites for most species of macroalgae. Many of these species probably have an obligate association with shallow hardbottom for shelter and position-maintenance. Many algal species also have adaptive chemical defenses against herbivores ( Table 7.2 ).

The species list for the entire NHB ichthyofaunal assemblage shows subs tantial similarities with many shallow coral reef species assemblages. Diffe rences between NHB fish assemblages and reef assemblages in OHB depth ranges often involve the highe r relative proportion of early life history stages on NHB structures, a juvenile-dominated assemblage. This suggests potentially important roles for differing ontogenetic species in shallow hardbotto m systems (Werner and Gilliam, 1984; Livingston, 1988), a useful concept for some applications invo lving the spatial ecology of species whose behaviors, habitats, and functional roles can change several ti mes post-settlement. While NHB may be considered facultative habitat for juvenile green turtles because turtles can use alternate systems for growth (e.g., the Indian River Lagoon), it raises the question of what is the most essential or effective habitat for this life stage. The promotion of the potentially debilitat ing disease fibropapillomatosis (or FP) has been attributed to environmental cofactors present within lagoon/estuarine systems. The occurrence of FP is substantially higher in estuarine environments, making the Indian River Lagoon, overall, a less-than-ideal water quality habitat for turtles. Tracking data from several sources indicate that most sub-adult green turtles (approximately 70 cm SCL; D. Bagley, in pr ep.) relocate and move into seagrass beds, where they forage. Some important nutritional aspects that are components of marine turtle developmental phases may drive their selection of certain habitats. Li ttle is known about hawksbill turtles in NHB habitats; however, their unique diet of sponge s will limit their foraging range to more tropical regions in areas where NHB provides suitable substrate for sponge settlement.

When newly settled and juvenile life stages are considered, questions of habitat dependence (an obligate attribute) and habitat opportunism (a facultative attri bute) often focus on habitats used at settlement or associated life stages. Tests of dependence require consistent evidence that at least one life stage is restricted only to the habitat in question. For example, in the Dry Tortugas area of the Florida Keys, gray snapper settle in grass habitats in strictly euhaline wate rs and use a variety of other high-salinity habitats through maturity (Starck, 1970). Gray snapper can possibly migrate to Florida Bay from the Dry Tortugas, but because all demersal size classes occur in the euhaline, Dry Tortugas area, estuary dependence as a species paradigm is potentially excluded (Lindeman et al., 2000). Experimental manipulations could be of value in further examining the alternatives.

For NHB-associated fishes, existing information can exclude many motile species as having an obligate association with shallow hardbottom. However, there are species such as the striped croaker, and some goby and blenny species, that can have very high a ssociations with shallow hardbottom (and shallow artificial reefs). In these species, experimental studies could possibly parse the degree of habitat dependency. Importantly, obligate associations with specific habitats (and foods) are relatively uncommon for many motile, shallow fish species anyway; individual marine organisms still have an

immediate need for the structure or food a facultat ive habitat provides. Therefore many habitats, though used facultatively, still have meas urable and potentially essential value as aggregators of the shelter and food resources that the early life stages of many species require.Section 3 7-16

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation AlternativesTable 7.2. Macroalgal species found on Florida’s Atlantic nearshore hardbottom habitat with known secondary metabolites proposed to aid indefense against herbivores. Table constructed primarily from data in Paul and Alstyne (1992) and Diaz et al. (2006).SpeciesAsparagopsis (Falkenbergia hillebrandii) DictyotaindicaLaurencia papillosaAvrainvilleasp.Dictyota pinnatifida Laurencia poiteauiBryocladia cuspidataDictyotasp.Laurenciasp.Bryopsis pennataDictyota volubilisLobophora (Pocockiella variegata)Bryopsis plumosaGalaxaura cylindricaLyngbyasp.Bryopsissp.Galaxaura marginata Neomeris annulataBryothamnion seaforthiiGalaxaura rugosaNeomerissp.Bryothamnionsp.Galaxaurasp.Padina gymnosporaBryothamnion triquetrumGelidiellasp.Padina profundaCaulerpa brachypusGelidium americanum Padinasanctae-crucisCaulerpa cupressoidesGelidium crinalePadina vickersiaeCaulerpa fastigiataGelidium pusillumPadinasp.Caulerpa isthmocladiumGelidiumsp.Penicillus dumelosusCaulerpa mexicanaGrateloupia filicinaPenicillussp.Caulerpa microphysaHalimeda discoideaPolysiphonia binneyi*Caulerpa peltataHalimeda incrassataPolysiphonia denudata*Caulerpa proliferaHalimedasp.Polysiphonia macrocarpa*Caulerpa racemosaHalimeda tunaPolysiphoniasp.*Caulerpa sertularoidesHalymeniaagardhii Polysiphoniasphaerocarpa*Caulerpa sertularoides farlowiiHalymenia floresiaPolysiphonia subtilissima*Caulerpasp.Halymenia floridana Sargassum cymosumCaulerpa taxifoliaHalymeniasp.Sargassum filipendulaChaetomorpha aereaHincksia (Giffordia conifera)Sargassum filipendula var. montagneiChaetomorpha brachygonaHincksia (Giffordiaduchassaigniana)Sargassum fluitansChaetomorpha mediaHincksia (Giffordia mitchelliae)Sargassum natansChaetomorphasp.Hincksia (Giffordia rallsiae) Sargassum polyceratiumCodium decorticatumHypnea cervicornis**Sargassumsp.Codium interextumHypnea cornuta**Stypopodium zonaleCodium isthmocladumHypnea musciformis**Udotea conglutinateCodium repensHypneasp.**Udotea flabellumCodiumsp.Hypnea spinella**Udoteasp.Codium tayloriJania adherensUlva(Enteromorpha chaetomorphoides)*Cryptonemia crenulataJania capillaceaUlva (Enteromorpha compressa)*Cryptonemia luxuriansJania rubensUlva (Enteromorpha flexuosa paradoxa)*Dictyota bartayresiiJaniasp.Ulva (Enteromorpha flexuosa)*Dictyota cervicornisLaurencia corallopsisUlva (Enteromorpha prolifera)*Dictyota dentataLaurencia gemmiferaUlva (Enteromorphasp.)*Dictyota dichotomaLaurencia intricateUlva lactuca*Dictyota dichotoma v. menstrualis Laurencia microcladiaUlvasp.*Dictyota divaricataLaurencia obtuse* Inducible defenses that operate quickly, fromseconds to minutes. ** Defense under question.Section 3 7-17

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 7.6 POPULATION CONNECTIVITY AND MAINTENANCE

For sessile invertebrates, there appears to be a trend towards limited dispersal of larvae or juveniles along the east Florida coast, but empirical informati on is limited. Of those species that reproduce sexually and asexually, many seem to propagate mo re via asexual reproduction. The scleractinian Acropora cervicornis is suggested to primarily reproduce when storm activity breaks its branches and individual pieces attach to the hardbottom (www.nmfs .noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebr ates/staghorn.html). Recent molecular research supports this idea, as there appears to be restricted gene flow among Caribbean populations (Vollmer and Palumbi, 2007). Similar storm-induced asexual reproduction may influence reproduction in some sponges ( Pione spp. and possibly Aplysina spp.) (Schönberg, 2002; M. Maldonado, Centros de Estudios Avanzado s (CSIC), Girona, Spain, pers. comm.).

In terms of sexually reproducing invertebrates, t here is a tendency towards shorter planktonic periods,

and larval behaviors that work in concert with local cu rrents, which may restrict dispersal of some of these species (McCarthy, 2001; Vollmer and Palumbi, 2007). For example, P. lapidosa larvae can be ready to settle 2 weeks after fertilization (Eckelbarger, 1976; Pawlik and Mense, 1994). They likely position themselves deeper within the water column, which may allow for local retention (McCarthy, 2001; McCarthy et al., 2002). Florida populations genetically compared to those in the Caribbean appear different, suggesting limited genetic exchange (Drake et al., 2007). Finally, the ubiquitous shallow water

scleractinian Siderastrea radians broods its young, likely resulting in lower dispersal of offspring from parent populations (Soong, 1993).

A tremendous amount of new review, empirical, and modeling information is coming to bear on long-vexing issues of population connectivity. Cons iderable information has amassed regarding a variety

of biotic and abiotic factors that contribute to ret ention in larvae. Retention on levels that challenge long-held views regarding long distance dispersal is now becoming commonplace (Jones et al., 1999; Cowen et al., 2000, 2006; Sponaugle et al., 2002; Pari s et al., 2005; Cowen et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2008). Though many differences exist, there are similarities between mainland east Florida shallow hardbottom habitats and rocky intertidal habitats of the U.S. Pacific coast at some scales of examination.

Gunderson et al. (2008) proposed several broad cate gories of dispersal based on work with rocky intertidal Pacific fauna that have utility in examini ng potential dispersal and connectivity patterns in mainland east Florida. Their categories included 1) highly open connectivity among patchy populations and broad dispersal; 2) mesoscal e dispersal structured by physics and resulting in several metapopulation sub-structures; 3) diffusive dispersal with stepping-stone metapopulations; and 4) non-dispersing networks of closed populations.

Efforts are underway to examine life history and empiri cal information on prominent invertebrate and fish species and functional groupings in the present study in order to assign select species or families of primary groups to appropriate connectivity categories. Nesting fish species with short larval periods (damselfishes), as well as species with limited pelagic larval periods (e.g., grunts , drums), show attributes of populations that could currently be placed in either the second or third dispersal category of Gunderson et al. (2008), through mesoscale details of east Florid a differ. In terms of many taxa, these connectivity patterns may change markedly above and below the deflection of the Florida Current. Future research on these issues could be highly informative.Section 3 8-1

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

# C h a p t e r 8

M i t i g a t i n g S h a l l o w H a r d b o t t o m I m p a c t s

An application of this synthesis report will be in the development of approaches to supplement current efforts to optimize the mitigation of unavoidable impacts. In this chapter, we examine fundamental theory and practice, and how mitigation is currently applied in nearshore waters of mainland east Florida. We also address Issue 4 ( Chapter 1

, Section 1.1 ), which is the question: if NHB has specific properties and functions that cannot be compensated for by existing OHB habitat, what are the best mitigation

alternatives for the loss of NHB?

To investigate the background issues and Issue 4, we used biological information from prior assemblage-specific chapters in Section 2 to examine preliminary scenarios of what happens to organisms during and subsequent to a dredge and fill bur ial at the fill site and how those stressors and effects may or may not cascade into local impacts at organismal and population scales. We also examine information regarding latitudinal differences in mitigation planning and implementation. It appears that only with such information aiding the front end of mitigation can the amounts and types of measurable compensation for lost services be fully evaluated.

8.1 STRESSORS AND EFFECTS

Recent methodological developments within the field of environmental assessment may aid evaluations of issues related to mitigation. Use of stressor and response characterizations within comparative ecological risk assessment frameworks is tractabl e. Full-experimental studies are often done in ecotoxicology, but synoptic, heuristic studies at scales that can slide from organismal to local population biology levels are feasible if the structured quantities of information assembled throughout Sections 2

and 3 are used. Whichever specific approaches are us ed, considerations of cumulative effects are necessary in comprehensive stressor and effect characterizations (Vestal and Rieser, 1995; Lindeman, 1997b).

8.1.1 Ecological Assessment Frameworks

We used simultaneous evaluations of stressors, effe cts, and their potential co-o ccurrence with flexible protocols to help ensure comprehensive evaluations of effects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 1992; Harwell et al., 1995). This framewor k for assessing environmental effects of human activities was formalized by t he USEPA in 1992 as comparative ecol ogical risk assessment (CERA), and a number of approaches have developed. These appr oaches can be applied in iterative manners and by use of group-based protocols.

Prior to examining mitigation issues in detail, we as sembled a preliminary CERA to identify some of the effects for which a mitigation reef might have to compensate. We simultaneously evaluated information on the specific stressors introduced by an anthropo genic event, the biological responses of the organisms and life stages in question, and the ultimate effect s at individual and population levels. Subsequently,

information on stressors and effects was int egrated based on spatial and temporal patterns of co-occurrence for prominent species groups. Due to t he inherent complexity of characterizing stressors, effects, and their co-occurrence, full-scale ecologi cal risk assessments are large projects, typically requiring a team of experts. Mechanics for executin g a full CERA are detailed in the above references.

8.1.2 Stressors, Responses, and Effects

At least three fundamental categories of stressor s can be identified in beach dredge and fill projects: turbidity, sedimentation (burial), and direct mechanical impacts. In the case of dredge and fill projects of mainland east Florida, sediments are excavated from areas offshore, fill is pumped into the supratidal and intertidal zones, a sand dike is built, and the fill is bulldozed into a broad beach. Most involve theSection 3 8-2

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### excavation and dumping of from 500,000 to 1,500,00 yd 3 

### of sediments per project. Follow-up projects are usually incorporated into the original engineering design at 5- to 10-year intervals. Excavation typically

occurs at one or more mid-shelf "borrow sites" t hat have been identified through geotechnical surveys as possessing beach-compatible sediments. Diverse spatial and temporal issues involving turbidity and sedimentation exist, including the abrasive effects of near-bottom sediment movements (V. Kosmynin, Bureau of Coastal Systems, FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, pers. comm.). The ratio of fines (silts and clays) to larger sediments is one of many multi-scal e issues of particular environmental interest.

In the present study, species of representative fishes, invertebrates, and algae were considered in terms of differential life stage-specific responses and effect s (e.g., the ontogenetic species of Livingston, 1980, 1988). It is not possible to characterize stressor effects and responses of every life stage of key species in association with dredge burial of their shelter and food resources. Considerable evidence suggests that survivorship of early life st ages is a primary determinant of ultimate adult population sizes of reef organisms (Sale, 1991 and many other papers on marine invertebrates and fishes). Therefore, early demersal life stages, numerically dominant for many fish and invertebrate species ( Sections 2 and 3 ), were emphasized in evaluations of potential responses.

Table 8.1 shows multiple potential responses by physiol ogical and behavioral systems (Olla et al., 1974; modified from Eisler, 1979). Many response categories can be associated with stressors arising from a natural or anthropogenic habitat burial event at shor t or extended temporal scales (Cech et al., 1998). Fish and invertebrate organ systems ex ist typically in states of relative homeostasis. Disturbance events create or amplify existing stressors. Organ- and b ehavior-scale systems can be challenged in discrete manners that, in combination, can rapidly degrad e the fitness of cohorts of early life stages.

Table 8.1. Representative response categories in ear ly stages of marine invertebrates or fishes when challenged by stressors from habitat burial (Modified from: Eisler, 1974; Olla et al., 1974).

Response Category Potential Response

Sensory Capacities Phototaxis

Geotaxis

Chemotaxis Chemoreception Temperature preference

Tactile inhibition Lateral line sensitivity

Rhythmic Activities Reproductive cycle Daily activity cycle

Motor Activities Avoidance

Attraction

Substrate association Equilibrium Swimming preference Spontaneous locomotor activities

Physiological Responses Respiration Feeding Pigmentation development Morphological development

Motivation and Learning Phenomena Feeding Conditioned avoidance response

Migration Behaviors Subdaily feeding migrations Ontogenetic habitat shifts

Intraspecific Behaviors Visual attraction Aggregation and schooling

Interspecific Behaviors Aggression and territoriality Predation vulnerabilitySection 3 8-3

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### In terms of the spatial distribution of stressors from dredge and fill activi ties, three overlapping cross-shelf strata are applicable: nearshore (0 to 4 m depth), in termediate (4 to 6 m), and shallow offshore (6 to 10 m). The mechanical conditions under which many beach engineering operations occur can preclude

direct assessment. For ex ample, visual assessment of direct du mping of dredge fill on hardbottom reefs is not possible, often for weeks post-project, due to elev ated turbidities at and adjacent to the project site. This situation also applies to di rect assessment of the interface of the dredge head and substrate during

excavation of fill offshore and habitat sca le effects of fill burial inshore.

Although effects of elevated turbidity on the health of organisms are poorly known in many marine environments (Rogers, 1990; Wilber and Clarke, 2001) , some information is available. Offshore and inshore, the introduction of unusually high concentr ations of silts and clays may exceed the tolerance thresholds of organisms in both direct (death) and i ndirect (lowered growth or lowered egg production) manners. A relatively short period of dredge-induce d turbidity caused an abrupt decrease in growth in two species of hard corals and may have had long term impacts on coral reproduction, including the important Montastraea annularis (Telesnicki and Goldberg, 1995). This species is found on shallow hardbottom of Broward County and also is an important co mponent of mid-shelf reef structure. Telesnicki and Goldberg (1995) also demonstrated negative effects of sediment loads on hard corals at turbidity levels below the maximum allowed by the State during dredging. Well-adapted invertebrates such as

sabellariid worms that encrust shallow rocks can under go partial or complete mortality in burial exceeding 3 days (Sloan and Irlandi, 2007) and by the eliminatio n of attachment substrata for future cohorts of

larvae.

In addition to characterizing effects and consequences at organismal and population scales, discriminating natural background variation from stre ssor-induced effects is also important across the shelf. Natural stressors can be significant in both winter and summer seasons. Long-term estimates of average turbidity values under natural conditions ar e lacking. In systems with substantial natural background disturbances, e.g., NHB of the northern project area, impact questions ideally should consider what additional stress loads beyond the nat ural background disturban ce regime can generate measurable declines in primary metrics of NHB condi tion. On the other hand, perhaps the additional anthropogenic stress load is negligible with the pre-exis ting natural disturbance load. The problem is that it is not only a matter of “quantity” – days of high wind/wave energy or the frequency of natural vs. anthropogenic burial of NHB, but, in addition, “quality” – the durability of offshore vs. shallow sediments that are being displaced by dredges and storms, respecti vely. This physical complexity is multiplied by the physiological stressor-effect relationships of key species (e.g., Table 8.1 ). Figure 8.1 provides a schematic overview of some of the key biological proces s (growth rates, fecundity, mortality) in terms of their response to dredging scenarios in addition to natu ral background turbidity fluctuations. Importantly, these biological processes are related so that subletha l, lowered growth in a cohort can potentially lower fecundity at a later age ( Figure 8.1 ). As with most multivariate, non-linear systems, conclusions regarding impacts will often be driven by site-specifi c aspects of the area in question and the breadth of species and life history stages considered.

Along with hurricanes in summer, natural high-turbidity conditions in southeast Florida also result from fall through late winter wind events, often associated with fronts. For many species of fishes, this is apparently a period of less significance to settlement stages. Spring through fall dredge burials of

hardbottom eliminate the habitat that marine fish and invertebrate larv ae utilize right before or during their peak periods of settlement to bottom structures. For motile species, the assumption that most or all fishes and invertebrates on NHB habitats can simply swim away is tenuous when applied to newly settled and early juvenile life stages in a dredge-indu ced sedimentation event (e.g., see tables in

Sections 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.2 ).Section 3 8-4

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Figure 8.1. Three scenarios of cross-shelf turbidit y and sedimentation effects (direct and indirect) for systems subjected to A) no dredging, B) so me dredging, and C) semi-continuous dredging (e.g., north-central Jupiter Island). These scenari os assume substantial natural turbidity from storm events and represent effects of fill in addition to background turbidity levels.

Early stages of fishes and invertebrates appear to be adapted to sheltering in hardbottom microhabitat crevices of all types and locations during wind and wa ve events and may survive such events. However, this assumes that the dredge fill sediments are coar se enough to not constantly resuspend. Laboratory and field investigations suggest that native beach sedi ments will settle to the bottom faster and resist resuspension more effectively than the high amounts of fine skeletal sediments transported to the fill sites from dredging of high carbonate s ediments native to low-energy en vironments offshore (Wanless and Maier, 2007). Intermediate or long term informatio n on changes in nearshore water clarity and other important physiological variables for fishes, invert ebrates and algae are not available over the last

decades.

In a natural wind event, water turbidity stressors are probably near the same scale as in a full dredge and fill project. However, most natural wind events do not result in the complete burial of all hard bottom structure. Organisms that are adapted to survive natural wind and wave disturbance events rely on shelter; dredging projects steadily eliminate all of t he shelter, unlike most stor m events. There is clear evidence that hurricanes and tropical storms can move sediments in such volume that entire NHB tracts are buried. The additive or multiplicative affects of smaller wind/wave events versus major storm or dredge and fill events of less frequency sugge st hypothetical and logical possibilities ( Figure 8.1 ) but little empirics. If a precautionary approach to ecosyste m-based management is being applied (e.g., National Research Council, 1999 and dozens of journal articles on coastal management and fisheries science), the collective impacts of dredge and fill projects cannot be negated simply by assumptions that major knowledge gaps (i.e., large topics with little publishe d research) mean the array of potential stressors are benign in the long term (Peterson and Bishop, 2005). In addition, the recreational values and ecosystem services provided by these habitats within an overall degraded coastal system are in no way free from continued degradation as well.Section 3 8-5

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### In addition to natural turbidity and sedimentation events discussed above, there are influential and potentially synergistic effects from the discharge of freshwater th rough south Florida’s flood control system that create major turbidity plumes near in lets. During the wet season (May through October), normal discharges are less than 50 m 3 

### /sec, but following hurricanes can reach 400 m 3 

### /sec (Hu and Wan, 2006). High volume discharges are most prevalent near the St. Lucie Inlet in Martin County, because the St. Lucie River is the seaward discharge point fo r water released from Lake Okeechobee. Smaller volumes of freshwater are discharged from other inlets including Port Everglades in Broward County, Lake Worth and Jupiter Inlets in Palm Beach County, Fort Pierce Inlet in St. Lucie County, and Sebastian Inlet in Indian River County. In addition to influenci ng light penetration, turbidity, and salinity, freshwater discharges can carry contaminants, har mful algae, and excess nutrients.

8.1.2.1 Invertebrates

Stressors associated with sedimentation, turbidit y, and mechanical impacts can affect co-occurring invertebrates on scales ranging from individual physi ology through, potentially, local population structure ( Table 8.2 ). Increased turbidity associated with dredging may cause sublethal impacts to sessile invertebrates that may include withdrawal into crevic es or body cavities, and possibly termination of feeding. Similarly, motile invertebrates such as sm all crabs and shrimp may withdraw into crevices and be functionally prohibited from feedi ng because of not being able to seek food. With an increase in the scale of dredging, most of these organisms (regardless of the ability to move) would perish, or at the very least be severely physically and/or physiologically stress ed. In the later case, such stress would likely reduce survival and reproductive ability ( Table 8.2 ). Not only does this high mortality affect population numbers, it also likely affects tr ophic interactions (Nelson, 1989).

Table 8.2. Invertebrate predictors of responses to dredge an d fill burial: 1) org anismal responses, and 2) assemblage-scale responses. Sc enarios are for the fill site only.

1) Organismal Responses

Scale of Effect Sessile Mobile on Bottom Highly Mobile

Behavioral responses (min to hr) - Withdraw in crevices or within body cavity - Terminate feeding - May withdraw in crevices - Terminate feeding - Flee

Physiological responses - Asphyxiation/death - Gill filament damage - Filter feeding shutdown - Other organ damage - Asphyxiation/death - Gill filament damage - Other organ damage - Predation in flight

Affected invertebrate classes and life stages (All = all life stages) Demospongiae, All Turbellaria, All Anthozoa, All Polychaeta, All Hydrozoa, All Stenolaemata, All Anopla, All Gymnolaemata, All Enopla, All Gastropoda, All Bivalvia, All Crionoidea, All Polyplacophora, All Ascidiacea, All Archaeogastropoda, All Entoprocta, All Echinoidea, All Gastropoda, All Crustacea, All
Merostomata, All Stelleroidea, All
Holothuroidea, All Squid spp. (Teuthida)

Behavioral responses (>1 day to 1 week) No survival Very low survival probability Attempt to disperse to other

hardbottom habitat Flight access to other hardbottom Impossible Rarely Site-dependent

Predicted local population mo rtality High, 95% to 100% High, 90% to 100% Sublethal impacts on any

survivors Unknown

Population connectivity Highly variable Variable

### Table 8.2. (Continued).

Section 3 8-6

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 2) Assemblage Responses and Potent ial Local Population Implications

Sessile Mobile on Bottom Highly Mobile

Without mitigation Wi ll cease to exist Will not exist or with greatly

reduced numbers Will flee to other structural habitats, fate unknown With resource mitigation Mitigation for Shelter

In large part depends on recruitment capability of invertebrates. The recruitment of sessile shelter-enhancing invertebrates will significantly affect survival of motile invertebrate spec ies. There will be very few older motile adults that will migrat e into

the affected area.

Mitigation for Food Resources

If they can settle, most suspension feeding invertebrates should not be adversely affected. Howe ver, the slow recovery of crevice dwelling species (small crabs, shrimp, worms) may affect prey availability for many motile invertebrate predators and

fishes.

Water Quality

Degradation in water quality via immediate and chronic turbidit y issues may affect fitness and/or survival of suspension feeders. It may also affect predator-prey interactions. Food web and community-scale trophic impacts

Before

Community is highly diverse, consisting of a mix of opportunistic and rare species. Food web consists of suspension feeders, herbivores, omnivores, and various levels of carnivores.

After

Low diverse community that consists of more opportunistic species and even fewer less abundant species such as corals and sponges. The reduction of shelter-enhancing sessile specie s will reduce the number of smaller carnivore trophic levels and is likely to affect higher trophic levels within the community.



### The loss of the high biomass of invertebrates (crabs, shrimp, worms, gastropods, bivalves) found within and near shelter-enhancing invertebrates (i.e., Phragmatopoma worms) and/or macroalgae can significantly modify in the nearshor e food web. Before a dredging event, the community can be diverse, consisting of a mix of opportunistic and uncommon specie s. In this condition, the food web consists of suspension feeders, herbivores, omnivores, and various levels of carnivores. However, after a dredging event that results in high mortality and habitat elimination, there is likely to be a less diverse community consisting of more opportunistic species and fewer uncommon species such as corals. Reduced shelter enhancement (via fewer sessile species) will reduce th e number of smaller carnivore trophic levels, with possible effects to the higher trophic levels within the community.

Mitigation efforts to restore hardbottom habitats in large part depend on recruitment capability of

invertebrates. The recruitment of sessile shelter-enhanc ing invertebrates will significantly affect recruitment and survival of motile invertebrate species. There will be very few older motile adults that will migrate into the area of impact. If they settle, most suspension-feeding invertebrates should not be adversely affected. Howeve r, the slow recovery of crevice-dwelling species (small crabs, shrimp, worms) may affect prey availability for many motile inverteb rate predators and some fi shes. Severe degradation in water quality (most likely via chronic turbidity) may affect fitness and/or surviv al of suspension feeders. It may also affect predator-prey inte ractions because of redu ctions in visibility. Significantly, mitigation planning should also consider that worm rock structur es are most abundant in intertidal and subtidal NHB and substantially less adapted for IHB and OHB depths in east Florida ( Chapter 4 ).

8.1.2.2 Fishes

The diversity of potential effects at the individual le vel is high. For example, seven differing sensory system variables and at least five other variables associated with motor activity and water-column positioning can be affected by dredge burials of resident fish habitats ( Table 8.1 ). Effects can be direct or indirect and operate over the short-term, long-term, or both ( Table 8.3 ). Indirect effects at the individual level can cumulatively translate in to population-level effects or not. Impacts months or years after the initial impact are difficult to measure (Cech et al., 1998).Section 3 8-7

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Table 8.3. Predictors of organism-scale responses to dredge an d fill burial in fishes. Scenarios are for fill site effects only.

Scale of Effect High Site Association Intermediate Site Association Fully Mobile

Behavioral responses (min to hr) - Withdraw in crevices or within body cavity - Terminate feeding - May withdraw in crevices - Terminate feeding

- Flee - Flee

- Associate with sediment

plume and feeding opportunities?

Physiological responses - Asphyxiation/death - Gill filament damage - Other organ damage - Asphyxiation/death - Gill filament damage - Other organ damage - Predation in flight

Affected fish families and life stages (All = all life stages) Pomacentridae, All Gobiidae, All
Muraenidae, All Blenniidae, All Apogonidae, All Gobiesocidae, All Ophichthidae, All Pempheridae, NS, J Haemulidae, NS Sciaenidaea, NS Lutjanidae, NS Chaetodontidae, NS Pomacanthidae, NS Residents Lutjanidae, J Scaridae, J, A
Labridae, J, A Serranidae, J Sciaenidae, J
Acanthuridae, J Balistidae, J Pomacanthidae, J, A

Transients Scorpaenidae, J, A Kyphosidae, J Chaetodontidae, A, J Pempheridae, A Lutjanidae, A Scaridae, A Scombridae, J, A
Labridae, A Sciaenidae, A
Acanthuridae, A Balistidae, J Haemulidae, A Carangidae, A, J Kyphosidae, J, A Sparidae, A, J

Behavioral responses (>1 day to 1 week) No survival Very low survival probability Attempt to disperse to other

hardbottom habitat Flight access to other

hardbottom Impossible Very site-dependent Site-dependent

Predicted local population mortality High, 95% to 100% High, 90% to100%. Mortality

due to shelter or food resource gaps during flight periods of >1-2 days. Sublethal impacts on any survivors Low, but taxa-specific. Some species able to relocate with relative ease, others no

Population connectivity Nesting species with low

larval durations are

common Variable Variable

NS = Newly settled; J = Juvenile; A = Adult.



### Many responses will show some species specificity, and within species, substantial ontogenetic variation. The cryptic hardbottom resident fishes and herbiv orous damselfishes (including adults) and the earliest life history stages of the other fish subassemblage types are among the most susceptible to direct mortality ( Table 8.3 ). Consideration of effects on fishes at these scales, and their effects on higher organizational scales, are generally absent from t he literature on shallow hardbottom and beach dredging in Florida. As the majority of motile fishes usi ng nearshore areas of southeast Florida are juveniles or younger, and life stages of many conspec ifics using mid-shelf areas are typi cally older, the greatest direct and indirect impacts may occur at nearshore fill site s and during flight responses; however, impacts at offshore borrow sites also remain underexamined, wi th occasional exceptions (Wilber and Stern, 1992).

Many of the effects examined here may be pulsed th rough time on very patchy scales. Interactions among short- and long-term effects may also occur, addi ng to the complexity in evaluating stressors and responses. Examination of cumulative effects of both direct and indirect stressors is still often unattempted, yet of importance to the full understandi ng of anthropogenic effects. It is useful to discriminate among lethal and sublethal effects, which in turn can produce differing responses based on

the time-scale evaluated. For exam ple, identical organ systems can unde rgo sublethal or lethal effects (e.g., respiratory stress vs. respir atory trauma). These variations, in turn, lead to differing effects at greater exposure durations. Examples can be devel oped for each combination of stressor intensity and

duration.Section 3 8-8

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 8.1.2.3 Algae

Though over 200 species of algae are recorded from NHB , the diversity of potential effects may not be as high as in other organisms. Motility and other life hist ory attributes are not as variable, and since almost all species rest on or attach to substrate, mortality is high across all divisions of algae ( Table 8.4 ). Preliminary examinations of what effects such stre ssors can generate at population levels suggest that long term and more meso-scale spatial frameworks may be required to fully detail dredge and fill effects on algal populations and trophically-associated invertebrates and fishes ( Figure 8.1 ). Potential long term reductions in water clarity can also affect food webs and require further examination to understand effects on growth rates, predation rates, and reproductive potential for diverse taxa.

Table 8.4. Predictors of organism- and populati on-scale responses to dredge and fill burial in macroalgae. Scenarios are for fill site effects only.

Scale of Effect High Site Association Intermediate Site Association Fully Mobile

Behavioral responses N/A N/A N/A

Physiological responses Mortality loss of photosynthesis and respiration Loss of primary production

Affected taxa and life stages All Divisions Rhodophyta – SR, F, T Phaeophyta – SR, F, T Chlorophyta – SR, F, T Cyanobacteria Fragmentation/Clonal: Sargassum spp. Caulerpa spp. Spore fragmentation: Sargassum spp.

Behavioral responses N/A N/A N/A

Flight access to other

hardbottom N/A N/A N/A

Predicted mortality High, 75% to 100% Highly variable, 0% to 75%. Sublethal impacts present Low-none

Population connectivity Quasi-closed, non-dispersing
systems Diffusive and mesoscale dispersal Broad dispersal

F = Fragment or clonal reproduction; SR = Spore recruitment; T = Turf species.

N/A = Not available.



### 8.1.2.4 Turtles

NHB appears to provide intermediate life stage habitat for juvenile marine turtles, in particular green, loggerhead, and hawksbill turtles whose residency is approximated to be 2 to 5 years. Turtles may remain in the same area during this period or they may “migrate” with water temperature changes. The magnitude of site fidelity is unknown at this time , but tag and recapture data as well as tracking data indicate that turtles display some site specificity, ev en as juveniles (Ehrhart et al,, 1996; Bressette et al., 1998; Kubis, 2003; Makowski et al., 2006b). Table 8.5 reflects preliminary efforts to assess the response of turtles to fill impacts given their mobility and potential responses.

Poor water quality impacts food resources for most marine turtle species (i.e., molluscs and crustaceans for loggerheads, sponges for hawksbills, macroalg ae for green turtles). Mitigation should include monitoring water quality before, after, and during dredge burial and mitigation construction. Water from land-use runoff sources should receive proper trea tment before reaching the shoreline; otherwise, unhealthy and deleterious conditions may occur on bo th short- and long-term time-scales. Degraded water quality has been suggested as a potential environmental co-factor for FP disease found in a relatively large number of juvenile green turtle populations worldwide (Herbst and Kline, 1995). The disease manifests predominantly as tumors on the ey es and fleshy parts of the body. FP can impair swimming and foraging abilities and make an animal more susceptible to predation and/or starvation or death. Internal tumors are typically lethal.Section 3 8-9

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Table 8.5. Predictors of organism - and population-scale responses to dredge and fill burial for marine

turtles. Scenarios are for fill site effects only.

Scale of Effect High Site Association Intermediate Site Association Fully Mobile

Behavioral responses - Flee to deeper water

- Withdraw under ledges

- Loss of food resources - May withdraw under ledges,

or flee in random walk response, or flee in optimal foraging response. - Immediately flee

Physiological responses - Increase foraging effort - Increased predator exposure - Increased predator exposure

- Slower growth rate

- Stress - Increased predation

- Slower growth rate

- Stress

- Higher carbohydrate intake

necessary for energy to migrate

Affected taxa and life stages Green turtle - J Hawksbill - J, S Loggerhead - S Disperse until new structure
present Green turtle - J Hawksbill - J, S Loggerhead - S Loggerhead - S

Behavioral responses see above see above see above

Flight access to other

hardbottom Green turtle Loggerhead turtle

Hawksbill turtle Transient/migratory?

Green turtle Loggerhead turtle

Hawksbill turtle Green turtle Loggerhead turtle

Hawksbill turtle

Predicted mortality Unknown/undocumented Unknown/undocumented Unknown/undocumented

Population connectivity Quasi-closed as juveniles. Juveniles appear to disperse at

certain size-classes Juveniles appear to disperse at

certain size-classes Broad dispersal (temporary condition)

J = Juvenile; S = Subadult.



### 8.2 MITIGATION OF NEARSHORE HARDBOTTOM BURIAL

The process and practice of mitigat ion is similar to ecological rest oration; the distinction between restoration and mitigation is that mitigation is invoked when the impact is known in advance, not

accidental or natural as in restorat ion. Thus the relatively new field of restoration ecology provides much of the theoretical and applied direction for mitigation efforts (e.g., Race and Fonseca, 1996; Zedler, 2000; Falk et al., 2006; Miller and Hobbs, 2007). Most of the experience in attempting to restore habitats and ecosystems comes from terrestrial and wetland environm ents. The legislative fr amework for mitigation is also derived primarily from wetland contexts. Thus far, work in marine environments in general and NHB mitigation in particular is still in its infancy.

As discussed in Chapter 1, adherence to particular ecological concepts can influence the interpretation of restoration efforts. In fact, restoration projects ar e themselves likely to yield new insights into ecological understanding, as many are quasi-experimental. Downes et al. (2002) stated “It has been said that an ultimate test of our understanding of an ecosystem is to create or repair a habitat and its function.”

As discussed above, dredging projects designed to rebuild eroded beaches may bury expanses of NHB and increase turbidity, both acutely and chronica lly. Although NHB is naturally buried and uncovered seasonally and with the passage of storms, additional burial through dredging can amplify and extend the

natural effects and loss of habitat within a stratum of the broader cross-shelf continuum. This is particularly true if burial affects time periods specific to the larval recruitment or movements of local fishes

and invertebrates.

For projects conducted under Section 404 of the Clea n Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890, potential impacts are treated in a three-step sequence. The first part of the sequence seeks through the analysis of alternatives to avoid adverse environmental impacts; if adverse impacts cannot be avoided,

then all efforts to minimize them must be taken; and in the event that minimization is not feasible and impacts are unavoidable, then compensatory mitigation is required. In most beach dredging projects where hardbottom is present in the project area, compensatory mitigation is required (USFWS, 2004).Section 3 8-10

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Mitigation efforts should seek to ameliorate not only t he effects of direct burial and immediate habitat loss but also turbidity, including chronic turbidity. Arti ficial reefs can compensate only for structural habitat loss; mitigating for chronic turbidity and low water clar ity (transmissivity) is not accomplished by reef placement. In this chapter, the focus is on mitigation of direct habitat loss through burial by dredge fill. To date, deploying artificial reefs has been the pref erred route for compensating for unavoidable impacts to NHB (USFWS, 2004). Artificial reefs have been used for fishery management and habitat enhancement for years (Seaman, 2000; Brickhill et al., 2005), but the use of reefs for mitigation or restoration has been a more recent phenomenon (Amb rose, 1994; Miller, 2002; Reed et al., 2006). The process usually involves pre-project evaluation of expected impa cts to existing NHB by utilizing aerial photographs to quantitatively map the area of hardbottom to be im pacted. Expected impacts are modeled by estimating where the seaward margin of f ill will distribute along the shoreline, the equilibration point following placement of sand on the beach. Once the potentially impacted area is determined, a mitigation plan is prepared, consisting of a calculated mitigation ratio, an engineering analysis, and a monitoring plan.

8.2.1 Artificial Reefs

The approach used to offset the effect of habitat buria l has been to construct artificial reefs near impacted

sites. Because some fishes and invertebrates will co lonize hard substrate through migration of adults or settlement of larvae from the plankt on, simply placing a st ructure on the seafloor will attract certain elements of the local fauna. As mentioned above, arti ficial reefs have a long and complicated history in fishery and habitat management. In addition, artificial structures have been used extensively in Europe and other coastal areas in association with beach proj ects (Bacchiocchi and Airoldi, 2003; Airoldi et al., 2005).

Research on the applications of artificial reefs has been extensive (e.g., Seaman and Sprague, 1991; Seaman, 2000), with legitimate claims of success, typi cally for offshore fishing values. Artificial reefs can become ecological traps that subject colonizing org anisms to fishery exploitation (Bohnsack, 1989) or high levels of predation (Hixon and Beets, 1993), and they can be sources or si nks within particular seascapes (Crowder et al., 2000). Success is o ften a function of what is measured, and consensus agreement on the most critical metri cs for success often is not evaluated.

Placement of reefs on sedimentary bottoms can, ov er time, alter sediment grain size distribution and organic matter accumulation around the reef, causing a corresponding change in associated infaunal assemblages (Davis et al., 1982; Ambrose and Anderson, 1990; Fabi et al., 2002). None of these drawbacks should preclude the use of artificial reef s as mitigation unless independent research from the proposed deployment site indicates that one or all would be influential.

A commonly posed concern with the use of artificial r eefs is the potential predation risk to newly settled organisms. It is assumed that predators are more abunda nt or more effective on artificial reefs than they are on natural reefs. It is important to note that t he field studies that demonstrated high predation were conducted on small artificial reefs, where the presence of only a few small predatory fishes can exert considerable influence on the existing community (Hixon and Beets, 1993; Eklund, 1996; Leitao et al., 2008). It is not clear how the results from studies of smaller isolated artificial reefs can be scaled to larger artificial reefs, but certainly increasing or decreasi ng the size or complexity of a reef could modify observed predation effects. McCart hy (2001) studied post-settlement mort ality of sessile invertebrates in intertidal and subtidal hardbottom off Boynton Beac h and found no predation effect for total number of species or for the majority of individual species. This suggests that sessile invertebrate mortality in

intertidal and shallow subtidal hardbottom can be the re sult of sand scouring and wave activity in addition to capture by mobile predators such as crabs or fishes.

Because current mitigation efforts have been exclusively centered on constructing artificial reefs in shallow water, an essential step in the process is to evaluate engineering stab ility. Reefs placed in shallow depths to achieve like-kind mitigation will be subject to high-energy waves and dynamic sand movements. Most reefs have been built from concrete or quarried limestone boulders ( Figure 8.2 ). These materials are subjected to stability tests t hat consider a range of wave energy impinging onSection 3 8-11

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### proposed structures. Stability test results generally preclude deploying limestone boulders or concrete slabs in water depths less than 4 m. These depths also mark the shallow operating depths of work barges and attending tugboats.

Figure 8.2. Artificial mitigation reef and substant ial algal and hydroid growth, 6 m depth, Juno Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Photo by D. Snyder



### .

An additional consideration is sediment overburden wi thin proposed reef footprints. If the sediment

overburden exceeds the maximum dimension of a reef unit, the entire reef unit could settle under the sand. Therefore, prior to selecting sites, cons iderable effort must be expended to measure sediment thickness (e.g., Deysher et al., 1998).

Because of the stability and logistic issues stated above, it is apparent that NHB cannot be mitigated for in like-kind fashion, given present technology and budgets. The solution has been to build reefs in deeper water where they are persistent and not subjec t to the burial and erosion that characterizes the 0 to 4 m depths ( Figure 8.2 ). Reefs built of limestone boulders are higher relief with different structural features than much of the naturally occurring NHB. In addition to stability and logistic concerns, spatial arrangement of artificial reefs ov er the seafloor needs to be evaluated from an ecological perspective (e.g., Jordan et al., 2005; Lindberg et al., 2006). Th ese factors must be considered when monitoring and evaluating the efficacy of mitigation reefs. Al ternative modular designs are also being developed ( Figure 8.3 ; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. et al., 2006).

In assessing restoration efforts in terrestrial asse mblages by reference sites, White and Walker (1997)

classified the basic elements of the reference info rmation based on proximity in space and time. Their classification, revised for NHB, is presented in Table 8.1 . The actual impact site provides the current ecological snapshot of conditions of the impact site , but it is only a snapshot and does not give an accurate picture of processes. For example, in coastal areas the natural condition may have long ago been obscured by anthropogenic effects, leading to th e question “what is natural ?”(Sapp, 1999; Jackson, 2002). Temporal data from the impact site are val uable, particularly if a bef ore-after-control-impact (BACI) approach is to be used in assessing the restor ation (Osenberg et al., 2006). Data such as these would be short term, for example during the year prior to a proposed dredge and fill project. Longer term (decadal) patterns will be more elusiv e, as White and Walker (1997) point out that temporal data do not always allow us to directly associate physical and bi ological factors related to disturbance regimes. Contemporary information from different sites will provide insight on how exis ting processes affect species assemblage attributes and dynamics. Unfortunat ely, in most NHB situations the primary spatial factor is one of water depth.Section 3 8-12

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Figure 8.3. Prototype mitigation reef modules made from articulated mat with integral coquina rock surface. Each block is about 30 inches x 30 inches x 12 inches (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. et al., 2006). Photo by D. Snyder



### .

If like-kind mitigation is desired, then managers and perm it applicants will have to accept that material will be lost (buried) under the sand. To some extent, this mimics the natural situation. Given the expense of constructing reefs, it is unsettling to place one in very shallow water only to have it disappear beneath a moving sand bar. However, dur ing other seasons the reef material w ill likely uncover. Potentially more problematic would be public safety issues in very sh allow waters as well as potential movement of reef

materials onto the beach with time.

Fauna and flora that live in the intertidal sectio ns of the NHB have to be adapted to survive through changes in a number of environmental factors. These factors not only change with season but also with state of the tide. They include seasonal and daily changes in water/air temperature, salinity, and desiccation. Additionally, organisms within this de pth zone are exposed to some of the highest wave energy that occurs when seasonal storms or hurricanes affect the area.

Restoration of buried worm reefs could be better effected by using existing knowledge on behavioral preferences of P. lapidosa and other sessile invertebrates during settlement. For instance, it has been

well documented that P. lapidosa repeatedly “test” substrates before settling on the preferred one (Eckelbarger, 1976; Pawlik, 1988). The recruitment of P. lapidosa to deployed substrates is variable but commonly higher at locations closer to the bottom and/or with moderate turbulence (D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Ja cksonville, FL, pers. observ.). Behaviora l preferences for moderate amounts of current have been quantified in laboratory studies with P. californica (Pawlik et al., 1991; Pawlik and Butman, 1993). Consequently, assuming adequate larval supply, there are likely to be unique combinations of hydrodyna mics and substrate features that will enh ance recruitment of invertebrates. A description of those features would allow coastal managers to modify artificial reefs to include those preferred features and thereby maximize larval settlement and formation of “natural” habitats.

McCarthy and Holloway-Adkins (2 007) investigated whether the P. lapidosa will recruit on deployed sets of settlement plates in ~4 m water depth off Brevard County, Florida, an area that has little significant subtidal NHB. They also investigated whether recruitment varies with height above the seafloor bottom, orientation, or chemical coating of the settlement plates. They deployed three 100 cm x 100 cm x 70 cm ultraviolet-stabilized polyethylene propagule and larval measurement (PALM) boxes off Satellite Beach, Florida (28°09.637’ N, 80°34.951’ W) in a water de pth of 4.6 m. Fifteen 10 cm x 10 cm x 1.5 cmSection 3 8-13

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### limestone settlement plates were vertically a ttached on the north, east, west, and south faces of each PALM box. The PALM boxes were deployed for two time periods. The first deployment occurred on 24 May 2006, and plates were recovered on 8 July 2006. The second deployment also took place on 8 July 2006, with boxes being recovered on 5 May 2007.

They found that P. lapidosa recruitment varied considerably for the two time periods sampled. During the May to July 2006 time period, P. lapidosa was the dominant encrusting organism, recruiting in fairly high yet variable levels. Most P. lapidosa worms encountered on the settlement plates were alive and in a range of sizes indicating multiple cohorts of recr uitment. Additionally, encrusting species such as bryozoans, hydrozoans, ascidians, and barnacles we re also frequently encountered on the settlement plates. During the July 2006 to May 2007 time per iod, the PALM boxes were partially buried with sediment and experienced high mortality of recruits of various species of encrusting organisms. P. lapidosa recruitment was very low, with most of the observed recruits on the plates being bivalves and barnacles. For both time periods, there was a trend that P. lapidosa recruitment was lowest on plates at the rows furthest from the seafloor. Otherwise, P. lapidosa recruitment occurred equally on plates regardless of chemical treatment and plate or ientation. In conclusion, recruitment of P. lapidosa did occur to artificially deployed structures off the Brevard Co unty coast in mean water depths of approximately

4.6 m.

The variation in recruitment between sampling periods may be because of 1) differences in time the plates were deployed, and/or 2) natural seasonal fluc tuations in larval availability. The general lack of significance among the experimental treatment means are probably a result of local hydrodynamic and/or turbidity conditions that consistently and dramatically fluctuate. These fluctuations likely are continually creating favorable conditions for the settlement of P. lapidosa larvae, regardless of the effect of plate orientation, height, and chemical treatment. Finally, it should be cautioned that P. lapidosa may recruit at these latitudes but may not survive at these dept hs because water temperatures likely reach cold temperature limits for this species (Eckelbarger, 19 76; D. McCarthy, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, pers. comm.).

The use of artificial reef habitat by marine turtle s is largely undocumented in the peer-reviewed literature. Jones et al. (2004) observed juvenile green turtles re sting among artificial reef rocks deployed in approximately 4 to 7 m water depths in Boca Raton, Fl orida. Garrido (2007) observed hawksbill turtles on shallow artificial reefs in West Palm Beach, Flor ida. Juvenile green and adult loggerhead turtles were

observed on the nearshore artificial reef dur ing annual surveys between 2006 and 2008 (Coastal Eco-Group Inc., 2008, 2009). Properly designed artifici al reefs with ledges and crevices may provide adequate shelter for resting marine turtles and provid e adequate substrate to support the foraging habits of hawksbill and green turtles. However, juveniles mo stly forage on shallow, narrow reefs in intertidal and shallow subtidal depths, and the placement of mitigati on reefs in deeper waters may create competition. These aspects remain unstudied, to date.

Mitigation reefs provide hard substratum for t he recruitment of macroal gae and invertebrate food resources for fish, turtles, and other invertebrat es. Mature macroalgae have been successfully transplanted on artificial reef surfaces (Ohno et al., 1990). Holloway-Adkins and McCarthy (2007) conducted experiments to test macroalgal recruitm ent on subtidally deployed structures off Brevard County where hardbottom is absent. The experimen t involved examining levels of recruitment on different substrate types that might be used in artificial reef construction in 4.6 m water depth. While characteristics of limestone (light coloration, porosit y, and texture) make it ideal substrata for macroalgae (Dawes, 1998), no significant differences in macroa lgal recruitment on experimentally tested settlement plates were found (Holloway-Adkins and McCarthy, 2007). Six of 15 red algae and three of five green algae documented by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (2005a) on adjacent NHB recruited on the settlement plates. Eleven macroalgae and seven invertebrate species found in the foraging samples of

gree n turtles recruited on the deployed settlement pl ates (Holloway-Adkins and McCarthy, 2007). Monitoring of mitigative artificial reefs in Broward County revealed overall macroalgal species richness was as high, or sometimes higher, as the natural NH B reefs during post-construction monitoring periods (Prekel et al., 2007). Species richness of green turtle-preferred macroalgae after 36 months was alsoSection 3 8-14

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### similar to what was found on natural NHB. However, higher quantities of macroalgae were documented

on the natural reefs than on the ar tificial reefs (Prekel et al., 2007).

The deployment of mitigation reefs prior to dredge and f ill projects could, ideally, provide a more timely compensation of functional loss through the contin uous existence of hardbotto m structure that would provide shelter and recruitment habitat during and after project construction. The timing of mitigation deployment, both seasonally and pre-construction, could potentially influence initial recruitment success. Deployment of mitigation reef structur es 6 months to 1 year prior to project initiation could allow for more adequate dispersal of macroalgal spores and fragments , as well as invertebrate larvae from existing hardbottom. There have been relatively few attempts to mitigate losses of NHB along the east Florida coast until recently. In 2004, the USFWS (2004) revi ewed permit applications from southeastern Florida (Indian River to Dade Counties) for projects where compensatory mitigation was recommended or required to offset impacts to hardbottom habitats. They selected 26 projects from USACE regulatory division permits and planning division civil works proj ects. This review revealed that 217 acres of hardbottom was expected to be impacted. Approximately 113 acres of artificial or natural materials were to be deployed as replacement habitat; this total included 43 acres completed and 70 acres for projects not yet completed (USFWS, 2004). The impacts in thes e examples were caused by filling, sedimentation, dredging for beach nourishment, and port expansion ( Table 8.6 ). The anticipated impacts of pending projects were also related to beach nourishment and port expansion.

Table 8.6. Summary of compensatory mitigation fo r completed projects in southeast Florida between 1985 and 2004 (Adapted from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004).

Project Type Name/Corps’ Florida County Avoid and

Minimize Reduced Impacts (acres) Recommended

Acres Required

Acres Constructed

Acres Location Type (in/out of

kind) Material (Acreage)

Beach Renourishment
Indian River County, Sectors 1&2 (200091872) Indian

River Yes 7.2 10.5 5.2 Offsite In Limestone

Fort Pierce Shore Protection (Federal project) St. Lucie Yes N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 Onsite In Limestone

Martin County Renourishment (199501665) Martin Yes .38 N/A 1.4 5.0 Onsite Out Concrete

Jupiter/Carlin Park Shore Protection (199900902) Palm

Beach Yes N/A 4.0 4.0 4.0 Offsite In and Out Limestone (3.25)

Concrete

(0.75)

Jupiter Inlet Sand Bypassing Palm

Beach No N/A 2.32 N/A 1.16 Offsite In Limestone

Juno Beach Shore Protection (1997066559) Palm

Beach Yes Reduced

fill and length 4.47 4.47 2.22 Onsite and

Offsite In Limestone

Phipps Park Shore

Protection Palm

Beach Yes N/A 3.1 N/A N/A Onsite In Limestone

Ocean Ridge Shore Protection (199301576) Palm

Beach Yes 5.9 4.55 4.55 4.55 Onsite and

Offsite In and Out Limestone (2.1)

Concrete

(2.0)

North Boca Raton Shore

Protection Palm

Beach Yes 0.2 N/A 0.16 0.16 Offsite In Limestone (0.07)

Modules

(0.09)

South Boca Raton Shore Protection (199401196) Palm

Beach Yes N/A 2.38 2.38 3.0 Offsite In Limestone

Broward County Shore Protection (19990554) Broward Yes 22 13.5 7.6 8.9 Onsite In Limestone

Bal Harbor BEC&HP (Federal project) MiamiDade N/A N/A 0.8 N/A 0.48 Offsite In Limestone (0.26)

Modules

(0.22)

Sunny Isles BEC&HP (Federal project) MiamiDade Yes N/A 3.13 3.13 0.33 Onsite and

Offsite In Limestone (0.19)

Modules

(0.14)

63 rd Street BEC&HP (Federal project) MiamiDade Yes N/A 0.08 0.08 0 Offsite In Limestone

### Table 8.6. (Continued).

Section 3 8-15

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives

Project Type Name/Corps’ Florida County Avoid and

Minimize Reduced Impacts (acres) Recommended

Acres Required

Acres Constructed

Acres Location Type (in/out of

kind) Material (Acreage)

Surfside and Miami Beach BEC&HP (Federal project) MiamiDade Yes 0.005 0.07 0.07 0.07 Offsite In Limestone

Total -- -- 13.69 36.58 30.44 25.97 -- -- -- Navigation Improvements

Fort Pierce Deepening St. Lucie Yes 2.25 15.0 4.0 4.0 Offsite Out Concrete

4.0 Hillsboro Inlet Navigation Improvement (199301995) Broward Yes 1.25 0.8 0.8 0 Onsite In Limestone

0

Miami Harbor Deepening MiamiDade No 0 N/A 13.5 13.5 Onsite In Limestone

N/A

Modules

0.6

Total -- -- 3.5 15.8 18.3 17.5 -- -- -- Combined Totals (Beach/Nav) -- -- 17.19 52.38 48.74 43.47 -- -- --

N/A = Not available.



### For 18 completed projects, USFWS (2004) identifi ed approximately 103 acres of direct impact to hardbottom habitat. Of this, 15 acres were related to port channel expansion, 49 acres were covered during beach nourishment projects, 25 acres were due to long-term sedimentation from pipeline leaks or rupture, and 14 acres were related to pipeline or an chor cable placement. An additional 10 acres of indirect impact to NHB was projected from short- term turbidity and sedimentation at Ocean Ridge and Indian River County beach nourishment projects.

Another 10 proposed projects were expected to directly impact about 114 acres of hardbottom habitat. Eighty-three acres are expected to be impacted from proposed port expansion, 18 acres are expected to be impacted from dredge filling, 12 acres are expected to be impacted by the deployment of liquid natural gas pipelines, and 1 acre is expected to be impact ed from sedimentation (USFWS, 2004). Since the 2004 USFWS report was released, t here have been changes to some of the projected projects. For example, Brevard County Mid-Reach will impact appro ximately 3 acres of hard bottom, not 22 acres (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. et al., 2006). For 15 of the 18 completed projects, compensatory mitigation was recommended, and the total acreage was 69 of the 103 acres dire ctly impacted by these projects ( Table 8.6 ). For the proposed projects, mitigation was recommended for 6 of the 10 proposed projects. These six projects will account for 82 acres of the 100 acres expected to be directly impacted.

8.2.2 Monitoring

Monitoring of mitigation performance or success is an im portant part of the entire process. Great sums of money are spent with current mitigation programs, and it is imperative to gain an understanding of successful applications to better guide future attemp ts. Monitoring mitigation projects is similar in approach to environmental impact monitoring, but ther e are important differences. The two monitoring types are similar in that most situations do not l end themselves to elegant experimental designs. Impact or mitigation locations are rarely replicated, and suitable control areas are often hard to find. Currently, there are several issues to consider when establishing a particular monitoring of restoration or mitigation

program:

• Setting goals;

• Framing hypotheses; and

• Study design.

Establishing the goals of the monitoring program shou ld be the first priority once the impact acreage has been scaled to corresponding mitigation acreage. Intu itively, the goals for NHB would be to restore the functional attributes of the impacted habitat to the level of an adjacent natural reference area. In reviews of past restoration projects, particularly in wetland an d terrestrial contexts, clea r statements of the projectSection 3 8-16

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### goals often were not included (Race and Fonseca, 1996; Hackney, 2000; Redmond, 2000). Setting goals will influence most of the other elements of the process. For example, if the goal is to restore functional aspects of the impacted assemblage, then the focus should be on reestablishing functional groups or clusters of focal species. Osenberg et al. ( 2006) distinguished between endpoint and effect-size based goals, pointing out that both approa ches have merits. Endpoints provide a basis for comparison and efficacy, whereas the effect size is necessary to understand how well the mitigation performed.

Again, the conceptual foundation of ecology comes into play, and interpretation of various concepts such as community structure, function, and succession will be important in setting and evaluating goals (Palmer et al., 1997). Application of various communi ty ecology theories in restoration efforts will depend on species present and characteristics of the natural environment. In the nearshore environment where assemblages would be less biologically predictable and driven by chance colonization and recruitment, conventional succession theory may be of little use.

Framing scientific and statistical hypotheses in accordance with standard practice in ecology (falsificationist approach) relative to restorati on projects presents a logical paradox (McDonald and Erickson, 1994; Underwood, 1996; Do wnes et al., 2002). In the conv entional approach, the researcher frames a null hypothesis, such as: there is no diffe rence in mean species richness between the control and impact sites. Data are collected and evaluated us ing a statistical test for the hypothesis that is rejected if an arbitrarily selected p -value for the test is reached. As Underwood (1990) pointed out:

“It is sometimes considered appropriate to phrase the st atistical definition of recovery as some measure in the disturbed area not being significantly different from that in control areas. This has been fossilized in legislation in some aspects of environmental manage ment (USEPA, 1985). This is inappropriate because sloppy, imprecise sampling leads to declaring recovery is complete when it is not. If the confidence interval(s) around the mean measure in the disturbed area or in the control areas (or both) is (are) large, they will not differ significantly in any test—even if the mean values are nothing like each other.”

Statistical methods exist that remedy these logica l issues; these methods are called bioequivalence by McDonald and Erickson (1994). With this approach, the researcher defines, in advance, a minimum measure. For example, 90% of the fish species ri chness (or 80% of the biom ass of epibiota) found in control areas would represent recovery in the mitigated habitat (e.g., McDonald and Erickson, 1994; Cole and McBride, 2004). This quantitatively defined endpoint must be exceeded before the habitat is considered restored. Thus, with this method the null hy pothesis is that the mitigation site is not equivalent to the control site. Bioequivalence gets around the logical problem, and the formal hypothesis tested is ratio of variables between the restored and reference sites. Following this approach, inadequate sampling will cause the test to retain the null hy pothesis of no equivalence, even if the mean measure does exceed the criterion for recovery. Furthermore, the burden of proof is now with the responsible
party.

In the past, most deployments were made with engi neering considerations mentioned above and have not lent themselves to elegant experimental designs . Researchers are forced to use approaches that deal with lack of replication, arbitrary placement of materials, and other violations of conventional experimental treatments. For this reason, the va rious forms of BACI designs are most appropriate (Osenberg and Schmitt, 1996; Stewart-Oaten and Bence, 2001; Os enberg et al., 2006). In addition, control site selection is a problem in many areas wher e NHB is impacted. The ideal control site is not a pristine and unaffected site against which to compare the mitigation reef. Control sites are those selected to represent the habitat that is being mitigated for, including any current anthropogenic influences. They are not randomly selected from a population of such sites. Equivalence tests described above can be used with BACI designs (Downes et al., 2002).Section 3 8-17

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### A variation of the BACI design is to restore only par t of an impacted area and compare the restored site (artificial reef) to the “unrestored control sites” as we ll as a natural control site over time (Downes et al., 2002). This will allow researchers to judge the direct ion of change, as well as the relative degree of change. Downes et al. (2002) indicated that three distinct treatments are needed:

1. degraded location(s) t hat need restoration; 2. similar degraded site(s) that will not be restored; and 3. site(s) that represent the target state.

A critical element of study designs is identifying re sponse variables and using those variables to evaluate success. McCoy and Mushinsky (2002) described su ccess as “an acceptably small difference between

the structure and/or function of a re stored system and that of a refere nce system.” When convergence of community structure is the goal in evaluating restoration success for ar tificial reef deployments in NHB mitigation, this definition could be incorporated in to an equivalency statement. As mentioned above and by others (Underwood, 1990; Downes et al., 2002), th e challenge is determining the response variable(s) and setting the level of equivalency.

8.3 CONCLUSIONS

8.3.1 Regional and Organism-specific Issues

• Mitigation of NHB impacts by using artificial re efs can often provide adequat e replacement of lost

structural habitat and therefor e some ecological functions.

• Not all reef designs and deploym ents will be successful in all situat ions; site-specifi c factors must be considered. Different approaches and designs will be required for different locations in southeast

Florida and east-central Florida.

• For worm reef areas, ensuring successful local larv al recruitment events is essential. To this end, project designers need to be sure that sediment size range is suitable to incoming recruits.

• For worm reef areas, a measure of success is not only the presence of worm reef but duration: it should persist through 1 year with new recruits being encountered in the second year. More importantly, there should be some of the dominant crustaceans encountered within it (e.g., Pachycheles monilifer [porcellanid crab], Pachygraphsus transverses [grapsid crab], Menippe

nodifrons [xanthid crab], and Synalphus fritzmuelleri [snapping shrimp]).

• In deeper or more southern areas of the project region, the presence of specific sponge and anthozoan species can be used to judge success of artificial mitigation reefs.

• In shallow mitigation to the mid- and north sectio ns of the project region, reef deployment should minimize impact to the yearly recruitment cycles of the habitat engineering worm reef.

• In terms of Issue 4: Can NHB functions be replac ed with artificial reefs in IHB or OHB depths? Probably not in large part for IHB and less for OHB, due to the depth limits on the habitat engineering worm species P. lapidosa, and the associated assemblage of many dozens of species that P. lapidosa structures support in areas from Brev ard County to mid-Palm Beach County.

• Artificial reef mitigation does not appear to remove or provide compensatory mitigation for the direct and indirect physiological and potential populat ion scale impacts of turbidity and sediment resuspension.

• If possible, materials should be used for artificial reef construction that support algae and worm rock to the north, and more sponges and corals to the south.

• Over 275 species of algae associate with NHB, and mo st are subject to high mortality on sites that are filled. Mitigation reefs can provide new attach ment sites for algae. Algal growth on mitigation reefs should correlate with water clarity.

• Pre-construction deployment of miti gation reefs (6 months to 1 year prior) in regards to seasonal recruitment patterns of focal reef organisms (i.e ., sabellariid worms, prominent fish species, macroalgae) may potentially accelerate functional compensation of habitat loss and should be a priority in project planning.Section 3 8-18

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### 8.3.2 Monitoring Issues

• A single approach for scaling mitigation is needed early in the project. Although competing models can be effective, using two different (non-complementary) approaches on the same project can lead

to confusion.

• Clear goals for mitigation should be established.

• Comparisons of biotic attributes between nat ural and artificial reefs should be framed using equivalency approaches when feasible.

• Study designs should be flexible and adaptive given the typical lack of natural c ontrols or replication.Section 3 9-1

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

# C h a p t e r 9

S u m m a r y

Synthesis of available information on shallow hard bottom structure and distribut ion, organismal biology and assemblage scale drivers, and stressors and mitigation responses are presented within Sections 1

, 2 , and 3 , respectively. Although many research gaps are present, substantial amounts of information can be assembled relative to shallow hardbottom ecological functions in terms of latitudinal and depth variation in areas within the study region. We w ill summarize primary findings on assemblages of algae, invertebrates, fishes, and turtles. We will then su mmarize information on ecological functions of shallow hardbottom, stressors and responses, and mitigation alternatives.

In the context of the three sections we will also cons ider the four original issues: 1) What are specific ecological functions of NHB?, 2) What is happening to the coastal ecosystem (broader than NHB) when this NHB is lost due to nourishment?, 3) Is OHB able to compensate for the loss of NHB?, and 4) If the NHB habitat has specific properties and functions that cannot be compensated for by existing OHB habitat, what are the best mitigation alternatives for the loss of natural NHB? Issue 1 and portions of

Issues 2 and 3 are addressed in sections below on algal, invertebrate, fish, and turtle assemblages. Additional components of Issues 2, 3, and 4 are subs equently addressed in secti ons below on ecological

functions. Issue 4 is addressed in the section on mi tigation with support from other sections. A paucity of depth-specific data exists for a majority of taxa in the region and continues to limit some summary statements about core differences among NHB, IHB, and OHB.

9.1 ALGAL, INVERTEBRATE, FISH, AND TURTLE ASSEMBLAGES

Shallow hardbottom habitats of southeast and east central Florida support a sometimes diverse, juvenile-dominated reef assemblage of invertebrates, fishes, and marine turtles. There are also many species of algae that can dominate cover. In total, at least 1,050 algal, invertebrate, and fish species are now recorded from NHB habitats of mainland east Florida. The physical environment is subject to wind and wave disturbance of sometimes high levels at intermediate temporal and spatial scales. Hardbottom patches occur in many areal sizes, frequencies, and depths and are the predominant shallow water habitat off mainland Florida’s beaches. These patches are the only natural structural habitat, outside of sand plain features, on the ocean side of all the in lets from Government Cut north to at least Port Canaveral; commonly considered habitats such as seagrass beds and mangroves do not occur outside of the inlets along this reach. Patchily distri buted NHB, IHB, and OHB areas can aggregate many diverse organisms and can be of local significa nce within the nearshore shelf seascape.

9.1.1 Algae

The total number of recorded algal taxa, identifi ed and unidentified, is approximately 340, including 277 known species. Potentially dominant genera are Ceramium, Dictyota, Hypnea, Laurencia, Gelidium, Caulerpa

, Jania , and Ulva , depending on subregions and other factors. While no one macroalgal species can be considered a keystone in the NHB, a handful of species appear to repeatedly surface in our examination of abundant and frequently utilized macroalgae. Halimeda spp. also aid in sand production.

Sunlight converted into macroalgal tissue is directly consumed by as many as 20 genera of invertebrates, at least 14 genera of fishes, and the juvenile stage of the endangered green turtle, Chelonia mydas

. Algae are a dominant driver of the food web and also c ontribute to shelter used by dozens of species of invertebrates and fishes. All algal species contribut e to oxygen and nutrient production. In terms of functional form groups, jointed-calcareous algae are most responsible for sediment enrichment and sand building.

The abundance and diversity of macroalgae on NHB vary substantially with changes in latitude from Cape Canaveral to Miami Beach. Proximity to relati vely warm, oligotrophic Florida Current waters is aSection 3 9-2

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### primary factor influencing macroalgal species distribu tion on NHB. Several other factors that influence distribution include small and large scale hydrodynami cs, different substrate types (e.g., worm reefs, limestone, coral reefs), water depth, light penetration (due to water clarity), sand scouring and burial, wave energy, fish and invertebrate grazing pressure, and the various life history strategies of different macroalgae (Lobban and Harrison, 1994). Some observ ations on the distribution of algae on NHB are 1) overall biomass appears comparatively higher in northern NHB regions (i.e., Indian River and Brevard Counties), 2) species with more grazer-resistant properties (e.g., phaeophytes, calcareous and crustose rhodophytes) are more diverse and abundant in southern NHB regions, and 3) cyanobacteria are commonly encountered on all NHB. However, caution is advised in drawing conclusions from these observations since they have yet to be thoroughly an d rigorously tested. A more thorough understanding of the functional role of macroalgae and cyanobacteria would include measuring: a) resilience under disturbance events (e.g., hurricanes), b) abundance and diversity at macro- and micro-level scales, c) temporal variability, and d) role of grazers in contro lling productivity.

9.1.2 Invertebrates

Over 533 species of invertebrates have been identified along the east Florida coast. The diversity of sessile species is greatest for cnidarians (~21%), bryozoans (~29%) and sponges (~19%). Some sessile taxonomic groups may not be represented with such high diversity but can occur in very high biomass. A primary example is the sabellariid polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa , which can be very abundant along the mid- to north sections of the project ar ea and is a habitat engineer that creates structure supporting high diversities of many other invertebrates.

Sessile invertebrate communities change noticeably with latitude and depth. In intertidal hardbottom to the north, dominant invertebrates are sabellariid polyc haetes, bryozoans, sea anemones, and tunicates, although the latter three groups generally do not occur in high biomass. Throughout intertidal areas, in

addition to P. lapidosa, the hard coral Siderastrea spp.

, two species of zoanthids, and several species of solitary anemones can be encountered. Within the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, the most conspicuous sponge is the rock-boring sponge Pione (formerly Cliona) lampa . In the more centrally located sections of the east Florida coast, there is generally an increase in abundance of P. lapidosa both intertidally and subtidally to water depths of approximately 4 m. Within Martin County, the St. Lucie Inlet Reef appears to be the northernmost extent of several of the reef-bu ilding corals that are important biodiversity contributors within the Caribbean region. The biomass of hard and soft corals and sponges, while variable and generally low, tends to increase to the south.

The most diverse and generally abundant motile in vertebrates are arthropods and polychaetes, which represent 47% and 28%, respectively, of the total number of motile invertebrate species. Over 100 species of crustaceans are extremely abundant, especially on worm reef-dominated hardbottoms. These include crabs, stomatopods, shrimp, isopo ds, and amphipods. There are over 87 reported polychaete species that are likely to be very abundant, although more research is needed to confirm this. There are also fairly high numbers of gastropods, fl at worms, ribbon worms, and echinoderms on these habitats. While less diverse, there generally are intermediate numbers of echinoderms such as sea

urchins to the north of the coast

. Some groups such as brittle stars are probably fairly diverse and abundant but have not been extensively studied.

Primary ecological functional roles of invertebrates along the east Florida coast include 1) shelter-enhancing organisms that increase local di versity of fishes and invertebrates, and 2) predators or prey in local food webs. Generally, the highest community biomasses along the mainland east Florida coast occur in hardbottom areas with higher abundances of sessile invertebrate species (some may be considered foundational or keystone contributors to t he community) that enhance local shelter. Along the Florida coast, important shelter-enhancing taxonomic groups are hard and soft corals, sponges, tunicates, molluscs, barnacles, and polychaetes (i.e., P. lapidosa ). However, their importance in this function may vary dramatically with depth and latitude . In terms of contribution to local food webs, important taxonomic groups are sponges, crabs, sh rimp, polychaetes, echinoderms, crabs, and shrimp.Section 3 9-3

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### The loss of NHB would result in a significant re duction of a high biomass of invertebrates (sponges, corals, crabs, shrimp, worms, gastropods, bivalves) that could significantly change the nearshore food web. Before a dredging event, the nearshore communit y can be fairly diverse, consisting of a number of common and longer-lived (often uncommon) species. In this situation, the diversity contributes to a

nearshore food web that consists of suspension feeders, herbivores, omnivores, and various levels of carnivores. However, after a dredging event occurs that results in high mortality and habitat elimination, there is likely to be a less diverse community consis ting of more opportunistic species, and fewer rare species such as corals. Further, conditions where t here is significant reduction in shelter enhancement (via fewer sessile species) in these areas could redu ce the number of smaller carnivore trophic levels and have possible adverse effects on the higher trophic levels within the community. Natural recovery of hardbottom habitats would depend on both re-exposure of substrate as well as recruitment capability of sessile shelter-enhancing invertebrates which in turn like ly affect associated motile invertebrate species. Although it requires further investigat ion, it appears that very few older adult motile invertebrates would migrate into the area of impact. Consequently, habitat recovery requires ample larval supply and recruitment of shelter-enhancing sp ecies to facilitate what could be a slow recovery of many associated motile invertebrates. The slow recovery of crevic e-dwelling species (small crabs, shrimp, worms) may in turn affect prey availability for many motile invertebrate predators a nd some fishes. Further, severe degradation in water quality (most likely via chronic tu rbidity) may affect fitness and/or survival of suspension feeders. It may also affect predator-prey in teractions because of reductions in visibility.

It is unlikely that OHB is able to compensate for the loss of NHB, particularly in the northern areas of the east Florida coast. Mitigation efforts to restore hardbottom habitats likely depend in large part on recruitment capability of shelter-enhancing species such as P. lapidosa . Therefore, local hydrodynamics and the type, topography, and relief of materials must be considered for artificial reefs to maximize recruitment and subsequent recovery of the habitat. For instance, in the case of P. lapidosa , the abundance of this species decreases significantly in water deeper than 4 m. Even within the 0 to 4 m depth range, the highest abundances occur more toward s the intertidal zone. Why this occurs may be related to improved feeding and reproduction that may occur in these more turbulent shallow waters. However, the choice to settle and live there depends ent irely on factors that affect larval supply. It is likely (though requires further investigation) that settling P. lapidosa larvae may touch bottom at deeper waters but actively postpone metamorphosis and choose to settle when they encounter shallower waters (McCarthy, 2001). Consequently, if the goal is to mitigate for loss of worm reefs (and associated organisms), then structures deployed in the OHB would not be successful unless chemical cues, hydrodynamics, or other environment al factors could be created that accurately mimic the shallower waters and induce larvae to settle. Further, if settl ement does occur at these depths, growing juveniles must survive and recruitment of associated species mu st occur to properly mitigate for lost habitat.

9.1.3 Fishes

Based on new and old information, over 257 species of fishes are now recorded from NHB habitats. The species list for the entire ichthyofaunal assemblage s hows similarities with assemblages from many shallow coral reefs ( Chapter 5 ). A wide range of spawning patterns is seen among the fishes of east Florida NHB. Nesting is un dertaken in differing manners by species of fishes from quite different families. Several different families, including the site-attached blennies and gobies, also build nests in cryptic manners throughout NHB structure, often laterally or upside-down in NHB microhabitats. Though understudied, we estimate that over 30 fish species spawn on NHB. Most motile species do not spawn on NHB, though there are exceptions. In addition, so me coastal pelagics may spawn on or near NHB.

Although the assemblage is juvenile-dominated, a well- developed food web exists that includes most or all common reef trophic categories, including planktivore s, herbivores, invertivores, and piscivores. The most prevalent trophic component among species is in vertebrate feeders. Randall (1967) categorized the diversity of invertivores according to 1) sessile animal feeders (e.g., sergeant major feeding on

Zooanthus ); 2) “shelled” invertivores (e.g., most Halichoeres species of wrasses), and 3) generalized invertebrate predators. The latter group was by far the biggest and included eels, squirrelfishes,

sna ppers, species of basslets ( Serrranus ), some drums (sciaenids), goatfishes (mullids), pompanos, wrasses, and some labrisomids, including the hairy blenny. Specialized invertebrate feeding can occurSection 3 9-4

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### as well ( Chapter 5 ). When the full spectrum of ontogenetic diet ary shifts is considered for most species, many are omnivorous (e.g., planktivory to invertivory to piscivory), from species as diverse as labrisomids and lutjanids.

Are nearshore fish larvae spending substantial time in the water column near NHB before settling there? This is possible for some taxa, particularly clupeiforms, gerrieds, sparids and others, but currently cannot be confirmed. For many species in south Florida, transport of larvae to NHB or OHB settlement areas may occur via cross-shelf oceanographic transport mechanisms resulting from diverse meso-scale phenomena (Limouzy-Paris et al., 1997). Directed water column or bottom sampling as done in some other areas (Ruple, 1984; Jahn and Lavenberg, 1986) is needed to address this issue.

Differences among ichthyofaunal assemblages are su ggested between the southern and northern areas of mainland southeast and east central Florida in terms of the most abundant species and habitat structure ( Chapter 5 ). Potential explanations for substantial differences in prominent species (sailors choice, black margate, hairy blenny) within a 360 km north-south gradient may include temporal recruitment variations, NHB structural differences be tween the two areas, differences in survey design, species reaching their biogeographic distributional limits between the northern and southern areas, and other factors (summaries of Chapters 5 and 7 ).

Bellwood (1998) concluded that reef fish assemblage s ultimately occur in association with too many

non-coral reef structures and recommended the term fishes on coral reefs . However, Robertson (1998a,b) defined reef fishes as “species that live on consolidated substrata that form coral and inorganic

reefs. ” Inorganic reefs, including rocky shores, were described as: “... the inor ganic bedrock provides large and small physical structure that fishes use as habitat features...”. All of the 10 consensus families of reef fishes in Bellwood (1998) are represented in association with NHB of east Florida. This evidence suggests there are few reasons to conclude that t he fishes of NHB of mainland east Florida do not constitute a reef fish assemblage.

9.1.4 Turtles

Juvenile sea turtles of three species commonly associate with shallow hardbottom of mainland east Florida: the green ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys

imbricata ) turtles

. There are many interactions between tu rtles and an array of organisms that utilize shallow hardbottom. For example, hawksbill turtles fragm ent sponges when foraging, creat ing space and habitat for other organisms (Leon and Bjorndal, 2002) as well as increasing sponge growth through fragmentation. Juvenile stages of the endangered gr een turtle can associate with shallow hardbottom for years, feeding on macroalgae and using structure for shelter. And while green turtles that forage on seagrasses have been examined for their important ro le in the productivity and nutrient cycling of seagrass communities (Thayer et al., 1984; Ar agones and Marsh, 2000; Moran and Bjorndal, 2007), the role of green turtles foraging on macroalgae in ma croalgal communities has not been examined until now (K. Holloway-Adkins, ongoing research). Under cond itions where substrate for the attachment and growth of macroalgae are limited and herbivory is high, grazers can potentially experience resource competition or partitioning. The mechanistic select ion behavior under variable resource conditions is important to understand, especially when planning pr ojects that potentially impact the plight of endangered species.

Conditions over many NHB sites make studying mari ne turtle populations difficult, and only a handful of studies have been conducted. Juvenile green turt les are the most frequently encountered species on NHB. Genetic stock studies utilizing mitochondrial DN A analysis were conducted on a subset of juvenile green turtles captured in two long-term (>10 years) population studies on NHB: Bagley (2003) in Indian River County and Bass and Witzell (2000) in St. Lucie Co u nty. Results indicate that NHB juvenile green turtle populations in these areas were a mixed genetic stock with the same genetic haplotypes as those from an array of different nesting beaches in Costa Rica, Florida, Mexico, and Aves Island (Caribbean). Juvenile hawksbill turtles have only recently been st udied and are rarely encountered north of Martin County. Genetic data from turtles captured on NHB, IHB, and OHB indicate they represent a genetic stock from various Mexico nesting beaches (L. Wood, Palm Beach Zoo, pers. comm.).Section 3 9-5

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### Data indicate that green and hawksbill turtles pred ominantly are the most frequently encountered species and the ones that assume relatively long-term re sidency on NHB. These data and observations suggest that the developmental life stages of ju venile green and hawksbill turtles in particular are intimately tied to the NHB habitat. The mean population size and size-c lass range suggest that the smaller mean size turtles (20 to 42 cm CL) are obligately tied to certain habitats within the NHB.

9.2 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND CONNECTIVITY

Many species use NHB, IHB, and OHB as settlement and early juvenile habitats. The great majority of the species are recorded from coral reefs. For fi shes, NHB assemblages are largely juvenile dominated and reef-species dominated. As the only natural habitat st ructure for 0.5 to 5 km of sand in any direction, shallow hardbottom structural features potentially serve a variety of ecosystem functions, including settlement and nursery areas, spawni ng sites (for over 100 species of invertebrates and fishes), feeding stations, and socioeconomic drivers (see Chapter 7 ). The ecosystem service roles of shallow hardbottom to local resident water users (fishers, dive rs, surfers), their families, and the local communities along mainland east Florida remain under examined. Conceptual ecological models can be a useful way to organize the bio-physical and socioeconomic complexity of shallow coastal systems (Ogden et al., 2005). Empirical information on feeding relationships will allow construction of more resolved food webs, which should enhance the development of conceptual ecological models for shallow hardbottom areas.

It is useful to consider the larger scale that thes e local populations are distributed across (in part, via planktonic larval stages). Outside of ahermatypic hardbottom reefs, nearshore marine areas of mainland east Florida show no natural, high relief, three-di mensional structures that support fish, algal, and macroinvertebrate assemblages. Energetically, hardbottom areas are nutrient-rich patches in among large sand plains. Ecological functions include shelter and feeding resource provisions to over 1,050 recorded species.

Currently, the majority of NHB habitat is within a narr ow, 200- to 400-m strip eastward of a major north-tosouth reach of beaches from Melbourne to Miami and di splay a variety of structural forms. Notable exceptions with much more gradation of shallow hardbottom habitats across the shelf and into deeper

areas occur in Broward and southern Indian River Counties. NHB composes less than 50% of the alongshore distance of any of the se ven county shorelines in the regi on, where it is often separated by kilometers of flat nearshore sand expanses. Latitudinal abundance differences may be common for prominent species ( Sections 2 and 3 ).

For sessile invertebrates, there appears to be a trend towards limited dispersal of larvae or juveniles along the east Florida coast. Of those species that reproduce sexually and asexually, many seem to propagate more via asexual reproduction. Recent molecular research supports this idea, as there appears to be restricted gene flow among Caribbean populations. Similar storm-induced asexual reproduction may influence reproduction in some sponges ( Pione spp. and possibly Aplysina spp.).

Much new review, empirical, and modeling information is coming to bear on issues of population connectivity ( Chapter 7 ). Considerable information involving si milar reef organisms from other areas has been amassed regarding a variety of biotic and abiotic fa ctors that contribute to retention in larvae (e.g., Cowen et al., 2006). Retention on levels that challeng e assumptions of routine long distance dispersal is now becoming more commonplace. Though many differences exist, there are similarities among

mainland east Florida shallow hardbottom habitats and ro cky intertidal habitats of the U.S. Pacific coast at some scales of examination ( Sections 2 and 3 ).

9.3 MITIGATION

Increasingly important and expensive questions involve the use of mitigation projects to offset impacts from large dredge and fill projects. Typically, these q uestions represent key steps in the finalization of permitting processes. Preliminary conclusions regarding the functional attributes of NHB and the application of that information to the evaluation of mitigation alternatives include the following:Section 3 9-6

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### • Mitigation of NHB impacts by utilizing artificial reefs can often provide adequate replacement of lost

structural habitat and therefore some structure- and trophic-associated ecological functions.

• Not all reef designs and deployments will be successful in all situati ons, and site-specific factors must be considered. Different approaches and designs w ill be required for different locations in southeast

and east central Florida.

• For worm reef areas, ensuring successful local larv al recruitment events is essential. To this end, project designers need to be sure that the sedim ent size range is suitable to incoming recruits.

• For worm reef areas, a measure of success is not only the presence of worm reef but duration: it should persist through 1 year, with new recruits encountered in the second year. More importantly, some of the dominant crustacean species should be encountered within the worm rock.

• In terms of Issue 4, based on available information, NHB functi ons will not be fully replaced with artificial reefs in IHB or OHB water depths du e to the depth limits on the habitat engineering worm species P. lapidosa and the associated assemblage of many dozens of species that P. lapidosa structures support in areas from Brev ard County to mid-Palm Beach County.

• Artificial reef mitigation does not appear to remove or provide compensatory mitigation for the direct and indirect physiological and potential populat ion-scale impacts of turbidity and sediment resuspension.

• Approximately 340 algal taxa are associated with NHB, and most are subject to high mortality if a site is filled. Mitigation reefs can provide new attachment sites for algae. Algal growth on mitigation reefs should correlate in part with water clarity. The most abundant species on NHB should be considered

in success criteria for artificial reef mi tigation progress and monitored for persistence.

• Invertebrate and fish grazers on artificial reefs pl aced in IHB or OHB waters may be subject to higher predation (especially in the more northern NHB regions where high-energy waves reduce the number of larger organisms in intertidal and shallow subt idal areas). Exclusion experiments on natural NHB vs. artificial mitigation reefs placed in deeper wate rs will reveal if mitigation reef productivity is reduced by increased grazer pressure.

• Deployment of mitigation reefs at least 6 months to 1 year prior to project construction could accelerate colonization of algae and invertebrates, as well as provide alternate habitat for animals able to escape burial.

• Placement of artificial reefs in IHB or OHB wa ters to mitigate for NHB dredge and burial projects should consider the possibility that where smaller si ze-class juvenile marine turtle populations exist, reefs placed in deeper waters may create habitat and resources suitable for larger turtles that could displace smaller individuals. Project planning shoul d include pre- and post-monitoring criteria that include designing artificial reefs that provide adequat e shelter for the existing size-class of juvenile turtle populations. Predation may also be increased on artificial reefs.

• Monitoring plans for juvenile marine turtles should include documenting both size and species, either through observer training and/or the capture and measuring of individual animals.

• Hypotheses in mitigation studies should be framed using equivalency approaches; this will also contribute to goal setting and success criteria.

• Study designs should be flexible and adaptive, giv en the lack of natural controls or replication.

9.4 RESEARCH NEEDS

In terms of both ecological functions of shallo w hardbottom and mitigating the loss of NHB, there are fundamental questions that require basic and reliable estimation of long-term patterns. Understanding effects beyond project boundaries at larger spat ial scales is important to understanding project significance. Some areas of additional work include the following:

• Latitudinal abundance differences in prominent sp ecies require more research to explain the north-to-south differences in assemblage pattern.

• What are the most useful functional categories t hat can be evaluated from available information for shallow hardbottom habitat/organism assemblages? Manipul ative experiments could be of particular use for some questions.

• With evaluation, are such categories applicable to the shallow hardbottom system?Section 3 9-7

Functional Attributes of Nearshore Hardbottom and Mitigation Alternatives 

### • A food web model for shallow hardbottom is needed for multiple purposes. Enough information to build such a model from the bottom levels up is no w accessible; however, empirical trophic studies are still badly needed.

• A full conceptual ecological model (CEM) needs to be developed; this will be more efficient if a thorough food web draft is available. The information to build a larger CEM is now available for some
components.

• The intermediate or long term water quality patterns and effects on shallow hardbottom from turbidity and sedimentation events, l ong-shore and cross-shelf, that result from dredge and fill projects (and relationships to natural turbidity) require examinat ion (Bishop and Peterson, 2005). Without this type of information, responses to Issue 2 regarding whole ecosystem effects when NHB is buried, or Issue 3 regarding OHB compensation role s, will be not be fully resolvable.

• Experimental investigations of mitigation reefs ar e needed to examine extant questions about boulder reefs vs. modular reefs, depth-related issues, and performance of differing reef array designs.Literature Cited 10-1 

# C h a p t e r 1 0

L i t e r a t u r e C i t e d

Abbott, D.P., J.C. Ogden, and I.A. Abbott. 1974. Studi es on the activity pattern, behavior, and food of

the echinoid Echinometra lucunter (Linnaeus) on beachrock and algal reefs at St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. West Indies Laboratory Special Publication No. 4. Fairleigh Dickinson University, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, p. 111. In: G. Hendler, J.E. Miller, D.L. Pawson, P.M. Kier (eds.), 1995, Sea St ars, Sea Urchins, and Allies: Echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 390 pp.

Ackerman, J.L. and D.R. Bellwood. 2000. Reef fish assemblages: A re-evaluation using closed rotenone stations. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 206:227-237.

Adams, A.J., C.P. Dahlgren, G.T. Kellison, M.S. Kendall, C.A. Layman, J.A. Ley, I. Nagelkerken, and J.E. Serafy. 2006. Nursery function of tropica l back-reef systems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

318:287-301.

Airoldi, L. 2001. Distribution and morphological va riation of low-shore algal turfs. Mar. Biol.
138:1,233-1,239.

Airoldi, L., M. Abbiati, M.W. Beck, S.J. Hawkins, P.R. Jonsson, D. Martin, P. Moschella, A. Sundelöf, R.C. Thompson, and P. Åberg. 2005. An ecological perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defense structures. Coast. Eng. 52(10-11):1,073-1,087.

Ambrose, R.F. 1994. Mitigating the effects of a coastal power plant on a kelp forest community: Rationale and requirements for an artificial reef. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:694–708.

Ambrose, R.F. and T.W. Anderson. 1990. Influence of an artificial reef on the surrounding infaunal community. Mar. Biol. 107:41-52.

Amsler, C.D. 2001. Induced defenses in macroalgae: The herbivore makes a difference. Journal of Phycology 37:353-356.

Andryszak, B.L. and R.H. Gore. 1981. The comp lete larval development in the laboratory of Micropanope sculptipes (Crustacea, Decapoda, Xanthidae) with a comparison of larval

characters in western Atlantic xanthid genera. Fish. Bull. U.S. 79(3):487-506.

Appeldoorn, R.S. and K.C. Lindeman. 1985. Multispe cies assessments in coral reef fisheries using higher taxonomic categories as unit stocks, with an analysis of an artisanal haemulid fishery.

Proc. Fifth Internat. Coral Reef Symp., Papeete, Tahiti, 5:507-514.

Applied Biology, Inc. 1979. Worm reef monitoring at the Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant: April 1976-April 1979. 39 pp.

Aragones, L. and H. Marsh. 2000. Impact of dugong grazing and turtle cropping on tropical seagrass communities. Pacific Conservation Biology 5:277-288.

Arrontes, J. 1999. On the evolution of interactio ns between marine mesoherbivores and algae. Bot.

Mar. 42:137-155.

Atkinson , L.P. and T.E. Targett. 1983. Upwelling al ong the 60 m isobath from Cape Canaveral to Cape Hatteras and its relationship to fish di stribution. Deep-Sea Res. 30: 221-226.

Bacchiocchi, F. and L. Airoldi. 2003. Distribution and dynamics of epibiota on hard structures for coastal protection. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci

. 56:1,157-1,166.

Bagley, D.A. 2003. Characterizing juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) from three east central Florida developmental habitats. Master's thesis , University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.Literature Cited 10-2 

### Banks, K.W., B.M. Riegl, E.A. Shinn, W.E. Pille r, and R.E. Dodge. 2007. Geomorphology of the Southeast Florida continental reef tract (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, USA). Coral Reefs 26(3):617-640.

Banks, K.E., B.M. Riegl, V.P. Richards, B.E. Walker, K.P. Helmle, L.K.B. Jordan, J. Phipps, M. Shivji, R.E. Spieler, and R.E. Dodge. 2008. The reef tract of continental Southeast Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counti es, USA), pp. 125-172. In: B. Riegl and R.E. Dodge (eds.), Coral Reefs of the USA. Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht.

Barile, P.J., B.E. Lapointe, and T.R. Capo. 2004. Dietary nitrogen availability in macroalgae enhances growth of the sea hare Aplysia californica (Opisthobranchia: Anaspidea). J. Exp. Mar. Biol.

Ecol. 303:65-78.

Baron, R.M., L.K.B. Jordan, and R.E. Spieler. 2004. Characterization of the marine fish assemblage

associated with the nearshore hardbottom of Brow ard County, Florida, USA. Estuar. Coast.

Shelf Sci. 60:431-443.

Baron, R.B., E.H. Hague, and C.K. Kruempel. 2007. S outh Boca Raton, FL Three-Year Artificial Reef and Four-Year Natural Hardbottom Biological Monitoring Results. Prepared for the City of Boca Raton. FL by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 44 pp.

Barry, J.P. 1989. Reproductive response of a marine annelid to winter storms: an analog to fire adaptation in plants? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 54:99-107.

Bass, A.L. and W.N. Witzell. 2000. Demogr aphic composition of immature green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) from the east central Florida coast: Evidence from mtDNA markers. Herpetologica

56:357-367.

Beasley, S.E., M.R. Dardeau, and W.W. Schroeder. 1997. Reproductive biology of the gorgonian Leptogorgia hebes (Verrill), pp. 3-18. In: S. Nort on (ed.), Diving for Science 2003, Proceedings of the American Academy of underwater Sciences, 22 nd 

### Annual Scientific Diving Symposium, 14-15 March 2003, Greenville, NC. 85 pp.

Bell, J.J. 2008. The functional roles of marine sponges. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 79(3):341-353.

Bellwood, D.R. 1998. What are reef fishes? Comm ent on the report by D.R. Ro bertson: Do coral reef

fish faunas have a distinctive taxonomic structure? Coral Reefs 17:187-189.

Bellwood, D. 2008. Herbivory on coral reefs: The ch allenge of change, p. 79. In: Reefs for the Future,

Abstracts. Proceed. 11 th 

### Internat. Coral Reef Symp. 7-11 July 2008, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Bellwood, D.R. and L. Sorbini. 1996. A review of the fossil record of the Pomacentridae ( Teleostei:

Labroidei ) with a description of a new genus and species from the Eocene of Monte Bolca, Italy. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 117:159-174.

Berkeley, S.A. and E.D. Houde. 1978. Biology of two exploited species of halfbeaks, Hemiramphus

brasiliensis and H. balao from southeast Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28:624-644.

Bert, T.M. 1992. Population char acteristics of the stone crab, Menippe mercenaria , in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):515.

Bertness, M. 2007. Atlantic Seashores: Natural History and Ecology. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.

Birkland, C. 1974. The effect of wa ve action on the population dynamics of Gorgonia ventalina Linneaus. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. 12:115-126.

Birkland, C. and B. Gregory. 1975. Foraging behavior and rates of feeding of the gastropod Cyphoma gibbosum (Linneaus). Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles, Sci. Bull. 20:57-67.

Bishop, M.J., C.H. Peterson, H.C. Summerson, H.S. Lenihan, and J.H. Grabowski. 2006. Deposition and long-shore transport of dredge spoils to nouris h beaches: Impacts on benthic infauna of an

ebb-tidal delta. J. Coast. Res. 22:530-546.Literature Cited 10-3 

### Bjorndal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten. 2003. From ghosts to key species: Restoring sea turtle populations to fulfill their ecological roles. Ma rine Turtle Newsletter 100:16-21.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and C.J. Lagueux. 1994. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in

coastal Florida habitats. Mar. Poll. Bull. 28:154-158.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. 2000. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea

turtles Caretta caretta : duration of pelagic stage. Ma r. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 202:265-272.

Bobadilla, M. and B. Santelices. 2005. Variations in the dispersal curves of macroalgal propagules from a source. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 327:47-57.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioral preference? Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:796-823.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.E. Harper. 1988. Length-weight relationships of selected marine fishes from the

southeastern United States and the Caribbean. NOAA Technical Report NMFSSEFC 215. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 31 pp.

Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies, a New Ecology for the Twenty First Century. Oxford University Press, New York. 241 pp.

Bracken, M.E.S. 2004. Invertebrate-mediated nutr ient loading increases growth of an intertidal macroalga. Journal of Phycology 40:1,032-1,041.

Brawley, S.H. and W.H. Adey. 1981. The effect of mi crograzers on algal community structure in a coral

reef microcosm. Mar. Biol. 61:167-177.

Brawley, S.H. and L.E. Johnson. 1992. Gameto genesis, gametes and zygotes: An ecological perspective on sexual reproduction in the al gae. European Journal of Phycology 27:233-252.

Brazeau, D. and H. Lasker. 1989. The reproducti ve cycle and spawning in a Caribbean gorgonian.

Bio. Bull. 176:1-7.

Breder, C.M. and D.E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of Reproduction, in Fishes. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY. 941 pp.

Breitburg, D.L. 1991. Settlement patterns and presettlement behavior of the naked goby, Gobiosoma

bosci , a temperate oyster reef fish. Mar. Biol. 109(2):213-221.

Bremner, J. 2008. Species traits and ecologic al functioning in marine conservation and management. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 366(1-2):37-47.

Bresette, M.J., J. Gorham, and B. Peery. 1998. Size fidelity and size frequencies of juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) utilizing near shore reefs in St. Lucie County, Florida. Marine Turtle

Newsletter 82:5.

Bresette, M.J., J.C. Gorham, and B.D. Peery. 2000. Initial assessment of sea turtle in the southern Indian River Lagoon system, Ft. Pierce, Florida, pp. 271-273. In: A. Mosier, A. Foley, and B. Brost (eds.), Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEF SC-477, Orlando, FL.

Brickhill, M.J., S.Y. Lee, and R.M. C onnolly. 2005. Fishes associated with artificial reefs: attributing changes to attraction or production using nov el approaches. J. Fish Biol. 87:53-71.

Briggs, J.C. 1974. Marine Zoogeography. McGraw-Hill, NY. 475 pp.

Brockmann, H.J. and J.P. Hailman. 1976. Fish cleaning symbiosis: Notes on juvenile angelfishes (Pomacanthus, Chaetodontidae) and comparisons with other species. Z. Tierpsychol.

42:129-138.

Broitman, B.R., C.A. Blanchette, B.A. Menge, J. Lu bchenco, C. Krenz, M. Foley, P.T. Raimondi, D. Lohse, and S.D. Gaines. 2008. Spatial and temporal patterns of invertebrate recruitment along the west coast of the United Stat es. Ecol. Monogr. 78(3):403-421.Literature Cited 10-4 

### Brooke, S.D. 2002. Reproductive ecology of a deep-water scleractinian coral, Oculina varicose , from the

south-east Florida shelf. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southampton (USA). 160 pp.

Brooke, S. and C.M. Young. 2003. Reproductive ec ology of a deep-water scleractinian coral, Oculina

varicosa , from the southeast Florida shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 23(9):847-858.

Brooke, S. and C.M. Young. 2005. Embryogenesis a nd larval biology of the ahermatypic scleractinian

Oculina varicosa. Mar. Biol. 146:665-675.

Brooks, S., M.A. Palmer, C.M. Sw an, B.J. Cardinale, and S.G. Ri bblett. 2002. Assessing stream rehabilitation: Limitations of community structure data. Rest orat Ecol. 10:156-168.

Brown, K.M. and T.D. Richardson. 1987. Foraging ecology of t he southern oyster drill Thias

haemastoma (Gray): constraints on prey choice. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 114:123-141.

Bush, D.M., W.J. Neal, N.J. Longo, K.C. Lindeman, D.F. Pilkey, L.S. Esteves, J.D. Congleton, and O.H. Pilkey. 2004. Living with Florida’s At lantic Beaches: Coastal Hazards from Amelia Island to Key West. Duke University Press. 338 pp.

Butler, P.A. 1985. Synoptic review of t he literature on the southern oyster drill Thais haemastoma

floridana . NOAA Technical Report, NMFS 35:1-12.

Camp, D.K., N.H. Whiting, and R.E. Martin. 1977. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974, V Arthropods. Florida Ma rine Research Publications No. 25. 63 pp.

Carlton, J.T. and E.W. Iverson. 198 1. Biogeography and natural history of Sphaeroma walker Stebbing (Crustacea: Isopoda) and its introduction to San Di ego Bay, California. J. Nat. Hist. 15:31-48.

Carr, A. and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passive migration of green turtle hatchlings in sargassum. Copeia 1980:366-368.

Carr, M.H., J.E. Neigel, J.A. Estes, S. Andelman, R.R. Warner, and J.L. Largier. 2003. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: Implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol. Applic. 13:S90-S107.

Carr, W.E.S. and C.A. Adams. 1972. Food habits of juvenile marine fishes: evidence of the cleaning habit in the leatherjacket, Oligoplites saurus , and the spottail pinfish, Diplodus holbrooki. Fish. Bull. 70(4):1,111-1,120.

Carriker, M.R. 1978. The chemical mechanisms of shell dissolution by predatory boring gastropods: a review and a hypothesis. Malacalogia 17(1):143-156.

Causey, B., J. DeLaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J. Garcia, J. Higgins, B. Keller, R. Kelty, W. Jaap, and

C. Matos. 2002. Status of coral reefs in the U.S. Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Navass a, pp. 251-176. In: C. Wilkinson (ed.), Status

of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Au stralian Institute of Marine Science.

Cech, J.J. Jr., B.W. Wilson, and D.G. Crosby (eds.). 1998. Multiple Stressor s in Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Chiappone, M. and K.M. Sullivan. 1996. Functional ecology and ecosystem trophodynamics. Volume 8: Site characterization for the Florida Keys Nati onal Marine Sanctuary. The Preserver, Farley Court of Publishers, Zenda, WI. 112 pp.

Choat, J.H., K.D. Clements, and W.D. Robbins. 2002. The trophic status of herbivorous fishes on coral reefs. I. Dietary analyses. Mar. Biol. 140:613–623.

Claro, R. and K.C. Lindeman. 2003. Spawning ag gregation sites of snapper and grouper species (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) on the insular shel f of Cuba. Gulf and Caribbean Research 14(2):91-106.

Clooney, R.A., C.M. Young, and I. Svane. 2002. Phylum Chordata: Urochordata

. In: C. Young (ed.),

Atlas of Marine Invertebrate Lar vae. Academic Press, London, UK.Literature Cited 10-5 

### Coastal Eco-Group Inc. 2008. Indian River County biological monitoring of the Ambersand artificial reef. Prepared for Applied Technology and Management, Inc. 65 pp.+ apps.

Coastal Eco-Group Inc. 2009. Indian River Count y biological monitoring of the Ambersand (Sectors 1 and 2) Mitigation Reef. Summer 2008 Monitoring Event FDEP Permit No. 0166929-001-JC & 0166929-007-EM. Prepared for Applied Technology and Management, Inc.

Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2006. Second annual biological monitoring report of the mitigative artificial reefs, 24 months post-construction of the mitigation reefs. Broward County, Plantation, FL. 141 pp.

Coastal Science Associates, Inc. 2000. Indian River County mapping and hard bottom characterization. Environmental Report: Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. January 2000. Submitted to Applied Technology and Management, Inc.

Cole, R. and G. McBride. 2004. Assessing impacts of dredge spoil using equivalence tests: implications of a precautionary (proof of safety) appro ach. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 279:63-72.

Coleman, F.C. and S.L. Williams. 2003. Overex ploiting marine ecosystem engineers: potential consequences for biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(1):40-44.

Collado-Vides, L. 2002. Clonal architecture in marine macroalgae: Ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Evolutionary Ecology 15:531–545.

Coma, R., I. Llobet, J.-M. Gili, and M. Zabala. 1996. Q uantification of sexual reproduction in the marine benthic hydroid Campanularia everta . Mar. Biol., Berlin 125(2):365-373.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1984. Environment al Assessment of the Palm Beach County Erosion Control Program: Phase I Ocean Ridge. Final Report. Prepared for the Board of County Commissioners, Palm Beach County, FL.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1992. Age growth and reproduction of bigeye scad Selar crumenophthalmus in Southeastern Florida waters. Prepared for Florida Marine Research Institute. 42 pp.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997. Monito ring of nearshore hard bottom habitats south of Ft. Pierce Harbor. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonv ille District. 15 pp.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2002a. Nearshore artificial reef monitoring report. Prepared for Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Reso urces Management, West Palm Beach, FL. 48 pp. + apps.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2002b. Second post-nourishment monitoring survey of nearshore

hard bottom habitats south of Fort Pierce Inlet Fo rt Pierce, Florida. 26 July 2002. Prepared for Taylor Engineering Inc., Jacksonville, FL.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2003. Nearshore artificial reef monitoring report. Prepared for Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Reso urces Management, West Palm Beach, FL. 46 pp.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004. Post-con struction monitoring survey of nearshore hard bottom habitats south of Fort Pierce Inlet, Fort Pierce, Florida. Prepared for Taylor Engineering, Inc., Jacksonville, FL.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2005a. Results of epibiotic surveys of nearsh ore rock outcrops in the Mid Reach Project Area in Brevard County, Fl orida. Prepared for Olsen Associates, Inc.
Jacksonville, FL.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2005b. Nearshore artificial reef monitoring report. Prepared for Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management, West Palm Beach, FL.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2005c. Survey of Fishes Along the Brevard County Mid Reach. Prepared for Olsen Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, FL. 11 pp.Literature Cited 10-6 

### Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006. Nearshore artificial reef monitoring report. Prepared for Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Reso urces Management, West Palm Beach, FL. 43 pp. + apps.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., East Coast Biologists, Inc., and Olsen Associates, Inc. 2006. Brevard County Mid Reach shore protection project: Mitigation assessment analysis. Report to Brevard County Natural Resources Management Office.

Cooke, C.W. 1945. Geology of Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Vol. 29. 339 pp.

Cooke, C.W. and S. Mossom. 1929. Geology of Florida. In: Twentieth Annual Report of Florida Geological Survey 29-228.

Costanza, R.R., R. d'Arge, R.D. Groot, S. Farber , M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Pareulo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M.v.d. Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natur al capital. Nature 387:253-260.

Cowen, R.K., K.M.M. Lwiza, S. S ponaugle, C.B. Paris, and D.B. Olson. 2000. Connectivity of marine populations: Open or closed? Science 287:857-859.

Cowen, R.K., C.B. Paris, and A. Srinivasa. 2006. Sc aling of connectivity in marine populations. Science

311:522-527.

Cronin, G., V.J. Paul, M.E. Hay, and W. Fenical. 1997. Are tropical herbivores more resistant than temperate herbivores to seaweed chemical defenses? Diterpenoid metabolites from Dictyota

acutiloba as feeding deterrents for tropical versus temperate fishes and urchins. J. Chem.

Ecol. 23:289-302.

Crowder, L.B., S.J. Lyman, W.F. Figueira, and J. Priddy. 2000. Source–sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66:799-820.

Cruz-Rivera, E. and M.E. Hav. 2000. Can quantity r eplace quality? Food choice, compensatory feeding, and fitness of marine mesograzers. Ecology 81:201-219.

Cruz-Rivera, E. and V.J. Paul. 2006. Feeding by cora l reef mesograzers: algae or cyanobacteria? Coral

Reefs 25:617-627.

CSA International, Inc. 2007. City of Venice B each Nourishment Project post-construction monitoring report. Prepared for Coastal Technology Corporation, Vero Beach, FL. 42 pp. + app.

CSA International, Inc. 2008. Indian River Coun ty Sector 7 Beach Restoration Project: Immediate Post-Construction Monitoring Report FDEP Permit No. 0215960-001-JC. Prepared for Indian River County, Vero Beach, FL. 76 pp. + apps.

Cummings, S.L. 1990. Colonization of a nearshore artificial reef at Boca Raton (Palm Beach County),

Florida. Master's thesis. Florida Atl antic University, Boca Raton, FL. 134 pp.

Cummings, S.L. 1994. Colonization of a nearshore artificial reef at Boca Raton (Palm Beach County), Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. (2 and3):1,193-1,215.

Davis, N., R.V. Van Blaricom, and P.K. Dayton. 198 2. Man-made structures on marine sediments: Effects on adjacent communities. Mar. Biol. 70:295-303.

Dawes, C.J. 1998. Marine Botany, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 480 pp.

Dennis, G.D. 1992. Resource utilization by members of a guild of benthic feeding coral reef fish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.

Department of Environmental Resources Management . 1993. Environmental assessment of coastal resources in Palm Beach, Lake Worth, S outh Palm Beach, Lantana and Manalapan, Palm Beach County, Florida.

Department of Environmental Resources Management . 1994. Environmental assessment for a shore protection project at Ocean Ridge Palm Beach County, Florida.Literature Cited 10-7 

### Dethier, M.N., K. McDonald, and R.R. Strathmann . 2003. Colonization and connectivity of habitat patches for coastal marine species distant from source populations. Conserv. Biol.
17:1,024-1,035.

Deysher, L. and T.A. Norton. 1982. Dispersal and colonization in Sargassum muticum (Yendo) Fensholt. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 56:179-195.

Deysher, L., T.A. Dean, R. Grove, and A. Jahn. 1998. An experimental reef program to test designs of an artificial reef for kelp mitigation. Gulf of Mexico Science 16(1):64-72.

Diaz, E., C. Guldenzoph, M. Molis, C. McQuaid, an d M. Wahl. 2006. Variability in grazer-mediated defensive responses of green and red macroalgae on the south coast of South Africa. Mar.
Biol. 149:1,301-1,311.

Dobberteen, R.A. and J.A. Pechenik. 1987. Comparison of larval bioenergetics of two marine gastropods with widely differing lengths of planktonic life, Thais haemastoma canaliculated

and Crepidula fornicate . J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 109:173-191.

Dominici-Arosemena, A. and M. Wo lff. 2005. Reef fish community structure in Bocas del Toro (Caribbean, Panama): Gradients in habitat comp lexity and exposure. Caribb. J. Sci.

41:613-637.

Dorenbosch, M., M.C. van Riel, I. Nagelkerken, and G. van der Velde. 2004. The relationship of reef fish densities to the proximity of mangrove and s eagrass nurseries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci

60:37–48.

Downes, B.J., L.A. Barmuta, P.G. Fairweather, D.P. Faith, M.J. Keough, P.S. Lake, B.D. Mapstone, and G.P. Quinn. 2002. Monitoring Ecological Impacts , Concepts and Practice in Flowing Waters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 434 pp.

Drake, C.A., D.A. McCarthy, and C.D. Doheln. 2007. Molecular relationships and species divergence

among Phragmatopoma spp. (Polychaeta: Sabellaridae) in the Americas. Mar. Biol.

150:345-358.

Drury, W.H. 1999. Chance and change, ecology for co nservationists. University of California Press. 223 pp.

Duane, D.B. and E.P. Meisburger. 1969. Geomor phology and sediments of the nearshore continental shelf, Miami to Palm Beach, Florida. US COE Coastal Engineering Center, Tech. Memo. No. 29, 47 pp.

Duarte, C.M. 2000. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem services: an elusive link. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

250:117-131.

Duffy, J.E. 1990. Amphipods on seaweeds: Partners or pests? Oecologia 83:267-276.

Duffy, J.E. and M.E. Hav. 1991. Food and shelter as determinants of food ch oice by an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecology 72:1,286-1,298.

Duffy, J.E. and M.E. Hav. 2000. Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organization of a benthic community. Ecol. Monogr. 70:237-263.

Duffy, J.E. and M.E. Hay. 2001. The Ecology and Evolution of Marine Consumer-Prey Interactions, pp. 131-158. In: M. Bertness (ed.), Marine Co mmunity Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.

Eckelbarger, K.J. 1976. Larval development and p opulation aspects of the reef-building polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa along the east coast of Flori da. Bull. Mar. Sci. 26:117-132.

Eckelbarger,. K.J. 1994. Diversity of metazoan ovar ies and vitellogenic mechanisms: Implications for life history. Proc. Bio. Soc. Wash. 107:193-218.Literature Cited 10-8 

### Ecological Associates, Inc. 2000. Physical and ecol ogical factors influencing sea turtle entrainment at

the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant: 1976-1998. Flor ida Power & Light Company, Jensen Beach, Florida. 55+ pp.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1992. Turtles of the worm-rock reefs. The Florida Naturalist 65:9-11.

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 1996. A study of the population ecology of the in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast from 1982-96. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service; Miami, FL. NOAA/NMFS/SEFC, Miami, FL. 164 pp.

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, W.E. Redfoot, S.A. Kubis, and S. Hirama. 2001. In-water population studies of marine turtles on the East-Central Florida coast; September, 1999 through December, 2000. NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 53 pp.

Ehrhart, L.M., E.I. Gilbert, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. St udies in marine turtle populations residing on the Sabellariid Worm Reef at Ambersand Beach, Indian River Co., Florida, in 2003. Applied Technology and Management, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL. 11 pp.

Eisler, R. 1979. Behavioural responses of marine poik ilotherms to pollutants. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.

B.286:507-521.

Eklund, A.M. 1996. The effects of post-settlement predation and resource limitation on reef fish assemblages. Ph.D. dissertation. Universi ty of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 148 pp.

Elliott, M., A.K. Whitfield, I.C. Potte r, S.J.M. Blaber, D.P. Cyrus, F.G. Nordlie, and T.D. Ha rrison. 2007. The guild approach to categorizing estuarine fi sh assemblages: A global review. Fish Fish. 8(3):241-268.

Entrix, Inc. 2008. USCG Final Environmental Impa ct Statement for Calypso LNG Deepwater Port license application DOT Docket Number: USCG 2006-26009. Prepared for USCG Deepwater Ports and Standards Division (CG-5225). U. S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC.

Eriksson, B.K. and E.G. Johansson. 2005. Effects of sedimentatio n on macroalgae: Species-specific responses are related to reproductive traits. Oecologia 143:439-448.

Fabi, G., F. Luccarani, M. Panfili, C. Solustri, and A. Spagnolo. 2002. Effects of an artificial reef on the surrounding soft-bottom community (central Adriatic Sea). ICES Journal of Marine Sciences

59:S343-S349.

Fagerstrom, J.A. 1987. The Evolution of Reef Communities. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 592 pp.

Falk, D., M. Palmer, and J.B. Zedler (eds.). 2006. Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Island Press. Washington, DC.

Fautin, D. 2002. Reproduction of Cn idaria. Can. J. Zool. 80:1,735-1,754.

Feddern, H.A. 1968. Systematics and ecology of We stern Atlantic angelfishes, Family Chaetodontidae, with an analysis of hybridization in Holacanthus . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 211 pp.

Feitoza, B.M., T.L. Dias, J.L. Gasparini, and L.A. Rocha. 2002. First record of cleaning activity in the slippery dick, Halichoeres bivittatus (Perciformes: Labridae), off northeastern Brazil. Aqua-J. Ichthyol. Aquat. Biol. 5(2):73-76.

Fiechter, J. and C. Mooers. 2007. Primary producti on associated with the Flor ida Current along the East Florida Shelf: Weekly to seasonal variability from mesoscale-resolution biophysical simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 112:C12002.

Fields, H.M. 1962. Pompanos ( Trachinotus sp.) of the South Atlantic coas t of the United States. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Bulletin. 62:189-222.

Floeter, S.R., C.E.L. Ferreira, A. Dominici-Arose mena, and I.R. Zalmon. 2004. Latitudinal gradients in Atlantic reef fish communities: Trophic struct ure and spatial use patterns. J. Fish Biol.
64:1,680-1,699.Literature Cited 10-9 

### Floeter, S.R., M.D. Behrens, C.E.L. Ferreira, M. J. Paddack, and M.H. Horn. 2005. Geographical gradients of marine herbivorous fishes: patterns and processes. Mar. Biol. 147(6):1,435-1,447.

Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) . 2006. Penaeid shrimps. Fact sheet. http://research.myfwc.com/engi ne/download_redirect ion_process.as p?file=Food_shrimp.pdf& objid=5352&dltype=article

Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). 2007a. Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus . Fact sheet.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissi on, Florida Wildlife Research Institute. http://www.floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=4128.

Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). 2007b. Florida stone crab, Menippe mercenaria , and gulf stone crab, M. adina . Fact sheet. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,

Florida Wildlife Research Institute. http://research.myfwc.com/features/ view_article.asp?id=4859.

Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). 2007c. Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus . Fact sheet. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Wildlife Rese arch Institute. http://research.myfwc.com/featur es/view_article.asp?id=30223

. Freeman, J., T.P. Quinn, L.K.B. Jordan, K. Kilf oyle, and R. Spieler. 2008. Comparison of fish assemblages between mitigation boulder reef and neighboring natural hardbottom in Broward County, Florida, USA, p. 529. In: Reef s for the Future, Abstracts. Proceed. 11 th 

### Internat. Coral Reef Symp. 7-11 July 2008, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Fluharty, D. 2000. Habitat protection, ecological issues, and implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecol. Applications 10(2):325-337.

Futch, C.R. and S.E. Dwinell. 1977. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974. IV. Lancelets and fishes. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, FL. Flori da Marine Research Publications Number 24.

Gaines, S.D. and J. Lubchenco. 1982. A unified app roach to marine plant-herbivore interactions. II. Biogeography. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:111-138.

García-Cagide A., R. Claro, and B.V. Koshelev. 2001 . Reproductive patterns of fishes of the Cuban shelf, pp. 73-114. In: R. Claro, K.C. Lindeman, and L.R. Parenti (eds.), Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba, Smiths onian Institution Press.

Garrido, K. 2007. Observations of immature sea turtles at a nearshore hardbottom developmental habitat in Palm Beach, Florida. B.A. Honors thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL. 47 pp.

Gerking, S.D. 1994. Feeding Ecology of Fishes . Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 416 pp.

Giangrande, A. 1997. Polychaete reproductive patterns, life cycles and life histories: An overview. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 35:323-386.

Giannotti, A.L. and K.J. McGlathery. 2001. Consumption of Ulva lactuca (Chlorophyta) by the

omnivorous mud snail Ilyanassa obsoleta (Say). J. Phycology 37:209-215.

Giese, A.C. and H. Kanatani. 1987. Maturation and s pawning, pp. 252-313. In: A.C. Giese, J.S. Pearse, and V.B. Pearse (eds.), Reproduction of Marine Invertebrates, IX. Blackwell Scientific Publ., Palo Alto, CA.

Gilbert, E.I. 2005. Juvenile green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) foraging ecology: Feeding selectivity and forage nutrient analysis. Master’s thesis, Univer sity of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 47 pp.

Gilmore, R.G., Jr. 1977. Fishes of the Indian Ri ver Lagoon and adjacent waters, Florida. Bulletin of Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 22:101-148.

Gilmore, R.G., Jr. 1995. Environmental and biogeog raphic factors influencing ichthyofaunal diversity: Indian River Lagoon. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57(1):153-170.Literature Cited 10-10 

### Gilmore, R.G. and P.A. Hastings. 1983. Observ ations on the ecology and distribution of certain peripheral fishes in Florida. Florida Scientist 46(1):22-30.

Gilmore, R.G., Jr. and F.F. Snelson, Jr. 1992. Striped croaker, Bairdiella sanctaeluciae

, pp. 218-222. In: C.R. Gilbert (ed.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. II. Fishes. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 242 pp.

Gilmore, R.G., Jr., C.J. Donohoe, D.W. Cooke, and D.J. Herrema. 1981. Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Adjacent Waters, Florida. Harbor Branch Foundation, Tech. Rep. No. 41:1-36.

Ginsburg, R. 1956. Beachrock in South Florida. J. Sed. Petrol. 23(2):85-92.

Gladfelter, W.B. 1979. Twilight migration and forging activities of the copper sweeper, Pempheris schomburgkii . Mar. Biol. 50:109-119.

Glynn, P.W. 1997. Bioerosion and coral-reef grow th: A dynamic balance, pp. 68-95. Chapman & Hall,

NY.

Goldberg, W.M. 1973. The ecology of the coral-octocoral communities off the southeast Florida coast: geomorphology, species composition, and zo nation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 23(3):465-488.

Gore, R.H., L.E. Scotto, and L.J. Becker. 1978. Community composition, stability and trophic partitioning in decapod crustaceans inhabiting some subtropical sabellariid worm reefs. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(2):221-248.

Gorecki, R. 2007. A comparison of sandy vers us rocky surf-zone fish assemblages along the east central coast of Florida. M.S. thesis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL. 68 pp.

Gram, R. 1965. A Florida Sabellariidae reef and its effect on sediment distribution. J. Sed. Petrol.

38:863-868.

Granado, I. and P. Caballero. 2001. Feeding rates of Littorina striata and Osilinus atratus in relation to nutritional quality and chemical defenses of seaweeds. Mar. Biol. 138:1,213-1,224.

Grimm, V. and C. Wissel. 1997. Babel or the ecological stability discussions: an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion. Oecologia 109(3):323-334.

Guimaraens, M.A.D. and R. Coutinho. 2 000. Temporal and spatial variation of Ulva spp. and water properties in the Cabo Frio upwelling regi on of Brazil. Aquatic Botany 66:101–114.

Gunderson, D.R., A.M. Parma, R. Hilborn, J.M. Cope, D.L. Fluharty, M.L. Miller, R.D. Vetter, S.S. Heppell, and H.G. Greene. 2008. The challenge of m anaging nearshore rocky reef resources: Many inhabitants of nearshore rocky reefs have lim ited home ranges and larval dispersion. Fisheries 33(4):172-179.

Gunter, G. 1979. Studies of the southern oyster borer, Thais haemostoma . Gulf Research Reports 6(3):249-260.

Hackney, C.T. 2000. Restoration of coastal habitats : Expectation and reality. Ecol. Eng. 15:165-170.

Hanisak, M.D. and S.M. Blair. 1988. The deep-water macroalgal community of the East Florida continental shelf (USA). Helgoland Marine Research 42:133-163.

Hare, J.A. and R.K. Cowen. 1996. Transport mech anisms of larval and pelagic juvenile bluefish ( Pomatomus saltatrix ) from South Atlantic Bight spawning grounds to Middle Atlantic Bight nursery habitats. Limnol. Oc eanogr. (41)6:1,264-1,280.

Harris, L. 2006. 2006 Monitoring of Martin County Nearshore Mitigation Reefs. Prepared for Martin County, FL.

Harris, L.E., K.L. Dillon, and L. Herren. 2007. Martin County's Nearshore Mitigation Reefs Year-6 Monitoring Report. Prepared for Martin County, FL. 17 pp.

Harvell, C.D. 1992. Inducible defenses and alloca tion shifts in a marine bryozoan. Ecology 73(5):1,567-1,576.Literature Cited 10-11 

### Harvell, C.D. and T.H. Suchanek. 1983. Partial pr edation on tropical gorgonians: Foraging behavior of Cyphoma gibbosum . (abs). Am. Soc. Zool. 23:985.

Harwell, M.A., J.S. Ault, and J.H. Gentile. 1995. Comparative ecological risk assessment, Vol. 1: Comparison of the ecological risks to the Tampa Bay ecosystem from spills of Fuel Oil #6 and Orimulsion. Final Rept. Center Mar. Envir on. Analysis, Univ. Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 177 pp.

Hay, M.E. and J.P. Sutherland. 1988. The ecology of rubble structures of the South Atlantic Bight: A community profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.10.). 67 pp.

Helfman, G.S., J.L. Meyer, and W.N. McFarland. 198 2. The ontogeny of twilight migration patterns in grunts (Pisces: Haemulidae). Anim. Behav. 30:317-326.

Hendler, G. 1977. The differential effects of seas onal stress and predation on the stability of reef-flat echinoid populations, pp. 217-223. In: D.L. Taylor (ed.), Proceedings: Third International Coral Reef Symposium., Vol. 1 (biology). Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Hendler, G., J.E. Miller, D.L. Pawson, and P.M. Kier (eds.). 1995. Sea Stars, Sea Urchins, and Allies:

Echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 390 pp.

Herbst, L.H. and P.A. Klein. 1995. Green turtle fibr opapillomatosis: Challenges to assessing the role of

environmental cofactors. Environment al Health Perspectives 103:27-30.

Herrema, D.J. 1974. Marine and brackish water fi shes of southern Palm B each and northern Broward counties. M.S. thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 163 pp.

Herrnkind, W.F. and M.J. Butler IV. 1986. Fact ors regulating postlarval settlement and juvenile microhabitat use by spiny lobsters Panulirus argus . Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 34:23-30.

Highsmith, R.C. 1982. Reproduction by fragmentat ion in corals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 7:207-.226

Hill, S.D. and J.P. Grassle. 1981. Caudal r egeneration as a measure of senescense in Capitella sp. I. (Polychaeta). Biol. Bull. 161:327.

Hill, S.D., J.P. Grassle, and S.W. Mills. 1982. Regeneration and maturation in two sympatric Capitella (Polychaeta) sibling species. Biol. Bull. 163:366.

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC. 120 pp.

Hixon, M.A. and J.P. Beets. 1993. Predation, prey refuges, and th e structure of coral-reef fish assemblages. Ecol. Monogr. 63:77-101.

Hobson, E.S. 1971. Cleaning symbiosis among California inshore fishes. Fish Bull. 69(3):491-523.

Hoffmeister, J.E. 1974. Land from the sea: The geologi c story of South Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL. 143 pp.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G. 2001. A comparative study of the feeding ecology of Chelonia mydas (green turtle) and the incidental ingestion of Prorocentrum spp. Master's thesis , University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 168 pp.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G. 2005. Green turtles using nearshore reefs in Brevard County, Florida as developmental habitat; a preliminary investigation. In: 25th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA-SENMFS, Savannah, GA.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G. 2006. Juvenile green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) foraging on a high-energy, shallow reef on the east cost of Florida, p. 193. In: M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (eds.), Book of Abstracts, Twent y-Sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. 376 pp.Literature Cited 10-12 

### Holloway-Adkins, K.G. and D.A. McCarthy. 2007. The recruitment of macroalgae on subtidally deployed

structures off the coastal waters of Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for Brevard County DEM, Viera, FL. 25 pp.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G. and J.A. Provancha. 2005. Abund ance and foraging activity of marine turtles using nearshore rock resources along the Mid Re ach of Brevard County, Florida. Dynamac, Jacksonville, FL. 45 pp.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., M.J. Bresette, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2002. Juvenile green turtles of the Sabellariid Worm Reef, p. 259. In: J.A. Seminoff (ed.), Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech nical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503, Miami,

FL.

Holmes, K.E. 1997. Eutrophication and its effect on bioeroding sponge communities. In: Proceedings of

the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama 2:1,411-1,415.

Hooper, D., N. Buchmann, V. Degrange, S.M. Díaz, M. Gessner, and P. Grime. 2002. Species diversity, functional diversity and ecosystem functioning, pp. 195–208. In: M. Loreau, S. Naeem and P. Inchausti (eds.), Biodivers ity and Ecosystem Functioning. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Hourigan, T.F., F.G. Stanton, P.J. Motta, C.D. Kelle y, and B. Carlson. 1989. The feeding ecology of three species of Caribbean angelfishes (Family Pomacanthidae). Environ. Biol. Fishes

24:105-116.

Hu, G. and Y. Wan. 2006. Tide and salinity regime al teration in two riverine estuaries on Florida’s east coast during Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne of 2004. The 7 th 

### International Conference on Hydroscience and Engineering, 10-13 September 2006, Philadelphia, PA.

Humm, H.J. 1969. Distribution of marine algae along the Atlantic coast of North America. Phycologia

7:43-53.

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2004. Indian River County Sectors 1 & 2 beach rest oration: In-water sea turtle distribution and abundance monitoring. Second annual monitoring report. Indian River County Sebastian, Florida. 17 pp.

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2005. Abundance an d distribution of marine turtles within nearshore

hardbottom and associated habitats. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, FL. 39 pp.

Jaap, W. 1984. The ecology of South Florida coral reefs: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/08, Washington, DC. 138 pp.

Jackson, J.B.C. 1997. Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 16:S23-S32.

Jackson, J.B.C. 2002. What is nat ural in the coastal ocean. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 98(10):5,411-5,418.

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjor ndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughe s, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629-637.

Jahn, A.E. and R.J. Lavenberg. 1986. Fine-scale distribution of nearshore, suprabenthic fish larvae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31:223-231.

Jax, K. 2005. Function and functioning in ec ology: What does it mean? Oikos 111(3):641-648.

Jensen, R.A. and D.E. Morse. 1990. Chemically induced metamorphosis of polychaete larvae in both the laboratory and ocean environment. J. Chem. Ecol. 16:911-930.

Johnson, L.E. and S.H. Brawley. 1998. Dispersal an d recruitment of a canopy-forming intertidal alga:the relative roles of propagule availability and post-settlement processes. Oecologia

117:517-526.Literature Cited 10-13 

### Johnson, W.S. and D.M. Allen. 2005. Zooplankton of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts: A guide to their Identification and Ecology. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 388 pp.

Jokiel, P.L. 1985. Lunar periodicity of planula release in the reef coral Pocillopora damicornis in relation

to various environmental factors. Proc. 5th Int. Coral Reef Congress, 4:307-312.

Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton, and M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69(3):373-386.

Jones, G.P. 1991. Postrecruitment processes in the ecology of coral reef fish populations: A multifactorial perspective, pp. 294-330. In: P.F. Sale (ed.), The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Jones, G.P., M.J. Millcich, M.J. Emslle, and C. Luno w. 1999. Self-recruitment in a coral reef fish population. Nature 402(6763):802-804.

Jone, G., S. Planes, P. Saenz Agudelo, and S Thorrold . 2008. Direct estimates of self-recruitment and local connectivity in a coral reef metapopulation, p. 117. In: R eefs for the Future, Abstracts.

Proceed. 11 th 

### Internat. Coral Reef Symp. 7-11 Ju ly 2008, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Jones, K.R., J.E. Moriarity, and K.W. Rusenko. 2004. 100 hours of swimming with turtles: looking in on a population of greens, pp. 205. In: R.B. Mast, B.J. Hutchinson, and A.H. Hutchinson (eds.), Twenty-Fourth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-567, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Jordan, L.K.B., D.S. Gilliam, R.l. Sherman, P.T. Ar ena, F.M. Harttung, R.M. Baron, and R.E. Spieler. 2004. Spatial and temporal recruitm ent patterns of juvenile grunts ( Haemulon species) in

South Florida. Proc. 55 th 

### Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 55:322-336.

Jordan, L.K.B., D.S. Gilliam, and R.E. Spieler. 2005. Reef fish assemblage structure affected by small-scale size and spatial variations of artifi cial patch reefs. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

326:170-186.

Juett, L., C.J. Miller, S.J. Moore, and E.S. Ford. 1976. Summer marine algae at Vero Beach, Florida.

Fla. Sci. 39:76-80.

Kanciruk, P. and W. Herrnkind. 1978. Mass migration of spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ): Behavior and environmental correlates. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(4):601-623.

Kang, C.-K., E.J. Choy, Y. Son, J.-Y. Lee, J.K. Kim, Y. Kim, and K.-S. Lee. 2008. Food web structure of a restored macroalgal bed in the eastern Ko rean peninsula determined by C and N stable isotope analyses. Mar. Biol. 153:1,181-1,198.

Kapela, W. and H.R. Lasker. 1999. Size-dep endent reproduction in the Caribbean gorgonian Pseudoplexaura porosa . Mar. Biol. 135(1):107-114.

Kaufman, L.S. and K.F. Liem. 1982. Fishes of the suborder Labroidei: Phylogeny, ecological, and evolutionary significance. Breviora 472:1-19.

Kennish, R. 1997. Seasonal patterns of food availability: Influences on the reproductive output and body

condition of the herbivorous crab Grapsus albolineatus . Oecologia 109:209-218.

Kennish, R. and G.A. Williams. 1997. Feedi ng preferences of the herbivorous crab Grapsus

albolineatus : The differential influence of algal nutrient content and morphology. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 147:87-95.

Kilar, J.A. and J. MacLachlan. 1989. Effects of wave exposure on the community structure of a plant-dominated, fringing-reef platform: Inte rmediate disturbance and disturbance-mediated competition. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 54:265-276.

Kingsford , M.J., J.M. Leis, A. Shanks, K.C. Lindeman, S.G. Morgan, and J. Pineda. 2002. Sensory environments, larval abilities and local self-re cruitment. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70(1):309-340.Literature Cited 10-14 

### Kinzie, R.A., III. 1974. Plexaura homomalla: The biology and ecology of a harvestable marine resource. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. 12: 22-38.

Kirtley, D.W. 1966. Intertidal reefs of Sabellariidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) along the coasts of Florida. Master's thesis, Florida State Un iversity, Tallahassee, FL. 104 pp.

Kirtley, D.W. 1967. Worm reefs as related to beach stabilization. Shore and Beach 35:31-34.

Kirtley, D.W. 1974. Geological significance of the polychaetous annelid family Sabellariidae. Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Univ ersity, Tallahassee, FL. 270 pp.

Kirtley, D.W. 1994. A review and taxonomic revi sion of the family Sabellariidae, Johnston, 1865 (Annelida; Polychaeta). Sabecon Press Scienc e Series 1, Vero Beach, FL. 223 pp.

Kirtley, D.W. and W.F. Tanner. 1968. Sabellariid worm s: Builders of a major reef type. J. Sed. Petrol. 38(1):73-78.

Kleypas, J.A., R.W. Buddemeier and J.-P. Gattuso. 2001. Defining “coral reef” for the age of global change. Int. Journal Earth Sci. 90:426-437.

Kojis, B.L. and N.J. Quinn. 1984. Seas onal and depth variation in fecundity of Acropora palifera at two reefs in Papua New Guinea. Coral Reefs 3:165-172.

Kotliar, N.B. and J.A. Wiens. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: A hierarchical model for the study or heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253-260.

Krueger, P.I. 1976. Transplantation and se ttling studies concerning the sabellariid Phragmatopoma lapidosa onto artificial concrete substrates. Master 's thesis. Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL. 72 pp.

Kubis, S.A. 2003. Growth rates of juvenile green turtles, Chelonia mydas , from three developmental habitats along the east central coast of Florida. Master's thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 60 pp.

Kuffner, I., L. Walters, M.A. Beccero , V.J. Paul, R. Ritson-Williams, and K. S. Beach. 2006. Inhibition of coral recruitment by macroalgae and cyanobac teria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 323:107-117.

LaPointe, B.E., P.J. Barile, M.M. Littler, and D.S. Li ttler. 2005. Macroalgal blooms on southeast Florida

coral reefs II. Cross-shelf discriminatio n of nitrogen sources indicates widespread assimilation of sewage nitrogen. Harmful Algae 4:1,106-1,122.

Lasker, H. 1984. Asexual reproduction, fragmentation, and skeletal morphology of a plexaurid gorgonian. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 19:261-268.

Lasker, H. 1985. Prey preferences and browsing pressure of the butterflyfish Chaeton capistratus on Caribbean gorgonians. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 21:213-220.

Lawrence, J.M. and J. Vasquez. 1996. The effect of sublethal predation on the biology of echinoderms.

Oceano. Acta. 19:431-440.

Lee, T., K. Leaman, E. Williams, T. Berger, and L. Atkinson. 1995. Florida Current meanders and gyre

formation in the southern Straits of Florida. J. Geophys. Res

. 100(C5):8,607–8,620.

Leon, Y.M. 2000. Selective feeding in the hawksbill turtle: An important predator in coral reefs. M.S. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Leon, Y.M. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2002. Selective feeding in the hawksbill turtle, an important predator in coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 245:249-258.

Levin, S.A. and R.T. Paine. 1974. Disturbance, pat ch formation, and community structure. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71:2,744-2,747.

Liess, A. and M. Kahlert. 2007. Gastropod grazers and nutrients, but not light, interact in determining periphytic algal diversity. Oecologia 152:101-111.Literature Cited 10-15 

### Lighty, R.G. 1977. Relict shelf-edge holocene coral r eef: Southeast coast of Florida. Proc. Third Inter. Coral Reef Symp., Miami, 1:215-221.

Limouzy-Paris, C.B., H.C. Graber, D. L. Jones, A.W. Röpke, and W.J. Richards. 1997. Translocation of larval coral reef fishes via sub-mesoscale spin -off eddies from the Florida Current. Bull. Mar. Sci. 60(3):966-983.

Lindberg, W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. Species pr ofiles: Life histories and environmental requirements o f coastal fishes and invertebrates (south Fl orida)--stone crab. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 17 pp.

Lindberg, W.J., T.K. Frazer, K.M. Portier, F. Vose, J. Loftin, D.J. Murie, D.M. Mason, B. Nagy, and M.K. Hart. 2006. Density-dependent habitat selection and performance by a large mobile reef fish. Ecol. Applic. 16(2):731-746

Lindeman, K.C. 1986. Development of larvae of the French grunt, Haemulon flavolineatum , and comparative development of twelve western Atlantic species of Haemulon . Bull. Mar. Sci. 39(3):673-716.

Lindeman, K.C. 1997a. Development of grunts a nd snappers of southeast Florida: cross-shelf distributions and effects of beach management altern atives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 419 pp.

Lindeman, K.C. 1997b. Comparative management of beach systems of Florida and the Antilles: Applications using ecological assessment and decision support procedures, pp. 134-164. In: G. Cambers (ed.), Managing beach resour ces in the smaller Caribbean islands. UNESCO Coastal Region and Small Island Papers # 1.

Lindeman, K.C. and W.J. Richards. 2005. Grunts: Haemulidae, pp. 1,597-1, 645. In: W.J. Richards (ed.), Early Stages of Atlantic Fishes. CRC Press. 2,581 pp.

Lindeman, K.C. and D.B. Snyder. 1999. Nearshore hardbottom fishes of southeast Florida and effects of habitat burial caused by dredging. Fish. Bull. 97:508-525.

Lindeman, K.C. and C.S. Toxey. 2003. Haemulidae, pp 1,522-1,550. In: K.E. Carpenter (ed.), Living

marine resources of the Western Central At lantic. Volume 2: Bony Fishes part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles, and marine mammals. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American So ciety of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5.

Lindeman, K.C., G.A. Diaz, J.E. Serafy, and J.S. Ault. 1998. A spatial framework for assessing cross-shelf habitat use among newly settled grunts and snappers. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish.

Inst. 50:385-416.

Lindeman, K.C., R. Pugliese, G.T. Waugh, and J.S. Ault. 2000. Developmental patterns within a multispecies reef fishery: Management applications for essential fish habitats and protected areas. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66(3):929-956.

Lindeman, K.C., T.N. Lee, W.D. Wilson, R. Claro, and J.S. Ault. 2001. Transport of larvae originating in southwest Cuba and the Dry Tortugas: Evidence for partial retention in grunts and snappers.

Proc. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Inst. 52:732-747.

Lindquist, N., R. Bolser, and K. Laing. 1997. Timing of larval release by two Caribbean demosponges. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 155:309-313.

Lirman, D., D. Manzello, and S. Maciá. 2002. Back from the dead: The resilience of Siderastrea radians

to severe stress. Coral Reefs 21:291-292.

Littler, M.M. and K.E. Arnold. 1982. Primary producti vity of marine macroalgal functional-form groups

from southwestern North Amer ica. J. Phycol. 18:307-311.

Littler, M.M. and D.S. Littler. 1980. The evolution of t hallus form and survival st rategies of benthic marine macroalgae: Field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am. Nat. 116:25-44.Literature Cited 10-16 

### Littler, M.M., D.S. Littler, and P.R. Taylor. 1983. Evolut ionary strategies in a tropical barrier reef system: functional-form groups of marine macroalgae. J. Phycol. 19:229-237.

Livingston, R.J. 1980. Ontogenetic trophic relati onships and stress in a coastal seagrass system in Florida, pp. 423-435. In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Perspectives. Academic Press, New

York.

Livingston, R.J. 1988. Inadequacy of species-leve l designations for ecological studies of coastal migratory fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 22(3):225-234.

Lobban, C.S. and P.J. Harrison. 199 4. Seaweed Ecology and Physiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 366 pp.

Longley, W.H. and S.F. Hildebrand. 1941. Systematic catalogue of the fi shes of Tortugas, Florida with observations on color, habits, and local dist ribution. Papers of the Tortugas Lab 34 (Carnegie Institute Washingtion Publ. 535). 331 pp.

Lucas, J.R. and K.A. Benkert. 1983. Variable foragi ng and cleaning behavior by juvenile leatherjackets, Oligoplites saurus (Carangidae). Estuaries 6(3):247-250.

Lüning, K. 1990. Seaweeds: Their Environment, Biogeography, and Ecophysiology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY. 527 pp.

Lybolt, M. and S. Tate. 2008. Rapid changes in near shore habitat: Is resource burial an appropriate measure of project impact? Shore and Beach 76(1):16-19.

Lyons, W., D.G. Barber, S.M. Faster, F.S. Kennedy, Jr., and F.R. Milano. 1981. The spiny lobster, Panulirus argus , in middle and upper Florida Keys: Popul ation structure, seasonal dynamics and reproduction. Florida Department of Natu ral Resources, Marine Research Laboratory; St. Petersburg, Florida, Publication No. 38.

MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical ecology. Prin ceton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 288 pp.

Main, M.B. and W.G. Nelson. 1988. Sedimentar y characteristics of Sabellariid worm reefs ( Phragmatopoma lapidosa Kinberg). Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 26:105-109.

Makowski, C. 2004. Home range and movements of juvenile Atlantic green turtles ( Chelonia mydas L.) on shallow reef habitats in Palm Beach, Florid a, USA. Master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 37 pp.

Makowski, C. and C.J. Kruempel. 2007. 2007 Survey of juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) on the

nearshore reefs of Brow ard County: The second post-con struction assessment of the Broward County Shore Protection Project. Pr epared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. for Broward County Environmental Protec tion Department, Plantation, FL. 12 pp.

Makowski, C., L. Fisher, and C.J. Kruempel. 2006a. Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas L. ) population

estimate for the nearshore reefs of Browar d County: A summary after three years of pre-construction monitoring. Shore and Beach 72:26-28.

Makowski, C., J.A. Seminoff, and M. Salmon. 2006b. Home range and habitat use of juvenile Atlantic green turtles ( Chelonia mydas L.) on shallow reef habitats in Palm Beach, Florida, USA. Mar.

Biol. 148:1167-1179.

Maldonado, M. and P. Bergquist. 2002. Phylum Porifera. In: C. Young (ed.), Atlas of Marine
Invertebrate Larvae. Academic Press, London, UK.

Marliave, J.B. 1986. Lack of planktonic dispersal of rocky intertidal fish larvae. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 115(1):149-154.

Marszalek, D.S., G. Babashoff, Jr., M.R. Noel, and D.R. Worley. 1977. Reef distribution in south Florida. Proc. Third Internat. Coral Reef Symp. 2:223-229.

Martin, V. and R. Koss. 2002. Phylum Cnidaria

. In: C. Young (ed.), Atlas of Marine Invertebrate Larvae.
Academic Press, London, UK.Literature Cited 10-17 

### Martinez, S. and E.D. Houde. 1975. Fecundity, sexual maturation, and spawning of scaled sardine ( Harengula jaguana Poey). Bull. Mar. Sci. 25:35–45.

Mayor, P.A., B. Phillips, and Z.M. Hillis-Starr. 1998. Results of the stomach contents analysis on the juvenile hawksbill turtles of buck island reef national monument, VSVI, pp. 230-232. In: S.P. Epperly and J. Braun (ed.), Proceedings 17 th 

### Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC. 415 pp.

Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Though t. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Mayr, E. 2004. What Makes Biology Unique? Consider ations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline. Cambridge University Press, New York. 232 pp.

McBride, R.M., J. Styer, and R. Hudson. 2003. Spawning cycles and habitats for ballyhoo and balao in

south Florida - Hemiramphus brasiliensis - H. balao . Fish. Bul. 10(3):583-589.

McCarthy, D.A. 2001. Life-history patterns and the role of disturbance in intertidal and subtidal populations of the polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa lapidosa (Kinberg, 1867) in the tropical Western Atlantic. Ph.D. dissertation, Kings College-University of London, England. 237 pp.

McCarthy, D.A. 2005. 2003 summer upwelling events off Florida’s Central Atlantic Coast. Florida Scientist 68(1):52-62.

McCarthy, D.A. 2006. Seasonal change to intert idal worm reef and hard bottom habitats at Bathtub Beach (Stuart, Florida). Re port to Martin County, FL.

McCarthy, D.A. 2008. Seasonal changes to intertidal worm reef and hard bottom habitats at Bathtub Beach (Stuart, Florida): July 2002 – December 2007. Report submitted to Martin County, Stuart, FL.

McCarthy, D.A. and K.G. Holloway-Adkins. 2007. Assessing larval recruitment of the polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa on subtidally deployed structures off Satellite Beach, Florida. Brevard County Department of Environm ental Management, Viera, FL. 15 pp.

McCarthy, D.A. and C.M. Young. 2002. Gametogen esis and reproductive behavior in the echinoid Lytechinus variegatus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 233:157-168.

McCarthy, D.A, R.B. Forward, and C.M. Young. 2002. Ontogenetic ch anges in phototaxis and geotaxis in the sabellariid polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa . Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 241:215-220.

McCarthy, D.A., C.M. Young, and R.H. Emson. 2003. Influence of wave-induced disturbance on seasonal spawning patterns in the sabellariid polychaete Phragmatopoma lapidosa . Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 256:123-133.

McCarthy, D.A., P.A. Kramer, J.R. Price, and C.L. Donato. 2008. The ecological importance of a recently

discovered intertidal sabellarid reef in St. Croi x, U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribb. J. Sci. 44(2):223-227.

McCoy, E.D. and H.R. Mushinsky. 2002. Measuri ng the success of wildlife community restoration. Ecological Applications 12(6):1,861-1,871.

McDonald, L.L. and W.P. Erickson. 1994. Testing for bioequivalence in field studies: has a disturbed site been adequately reclaimed? pp. 187-197. In: D.J. Fletcher and B.F.J. Manly, Statistics and Environmental Monitoring. University of Otago Press, Dunedin, New Zealand.

McFarland, W.N., E.B. Brothers, J.C. Ogden, M.J. Shulman, E.L. Bermingham, and N.M.

Kotchian-Prentis. 1985. Recruitment patterns in young French grunts, Haemulon

flavolineatum (family Haemulidae), at St. Croix, Virgin Islands. Fish. Bull. U.S. 83:151-161.

McGraw, K.A. and G. Gunter. 1972. Observations on killing of the Virginia oyster by the gulf oyster
borer, Thais haemastoma , with evidence for a paralytic se cretion. Proc. Nat. Shell Ass.

63:95-97.Literature Cited 10-18 

### Mehta, A.J. 1973. Coastal engineerin g study of sabellariid reefs: Report of hydraulic model study to the Harbor Branch Foundation Laboratory, Ft. Pier ce, Florida. Coast. Oceanogr. Eng. Indust. Exper. Sta., University of Flor ida, Gainesville, FL. 67 pp.

Meyer, J.L., E.T. Schultz, and G.S. Helfman. 1983. Fish schools: An asset to corals. Science
220:1,047-1,049.

Miller, C.L. and T.R. Cuba. 2003. Epilithic community structure and connectivity with fish assemblages on the nearshore hardbottom in Broward County, Florida. Prepared for the Broward County Shore Protection Project, Broward County, FL.

Miller, C. and V. Kosmynin. 2008. The effects of hurricane-deposited mud on coral communities in

Florida. Proc. 11 th 

### Internat. Coral Reef Symp. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 7-11 July 2008.

Miller, J.L. and T.N. Lee. 1995. Gulf Stream meanders in the South Atlantic Bight, Part I: Scaling and energetics. J. Geophys. Res

. 100:6,687-6,704.

Miller, J.R. and R.J. Hobbs. 2007. Habitat restorat ion – do we know what we are doing? Restorat. Ecol. 15(3):382-390.

Miller, M.W. 2002. Using ecological processes to adv ance artificial reef goals. ICES Journal of Marine

Science 59:S27–S31.

Moffler, M.D. and J.F. van Breedveld. 1979. Nearsh ore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974. A species list of marine benthic macroalgae collected off Hutchinson Island,

Florida. Fla. Mar. Res. Pub. 34:118-122.

Molis, M., J. Korner, Y. Wook Ko, J. Ha Kim, and M. Wahl. 2006. Inducible responses in the brown

seaweed Ecklonia cava : The role of grazer identity and season. J. Ecol. 94:243-249.

Montague, C.L. 2008. Recovering the sand deficit fr om a century of dredging and jetties along Florida’s

Atlantic coast: A reevaluation of beach nour ishment as an essential tool for ecological conservation. J. Coast. Res. 24(4):899-916.

Moore, R., W.D. Clark, and D.S. Vodopich. 1998. Botany, 2nd edition. WCB/McGraw-Hill. 918 pp.

Moran, K.L. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2007. Simulated green turtle grazing affects nutrient composition of the

seagrass Thalassia testudinum . Mar. Biol. 150:1,083-1,092.

Mortimer, J.A. 1995. Feeding ecology of sea turtles, pp. 103-109. In: K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and

Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smiths onian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Motta, P.J., K.B. Clifton, P. Hernandez, B.T. Eggold, S.D. Giordano, and R. Wilcox. 1995. Feeding relationships among nine species of seagrass fish es of Tampa Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar.

Sci. 56:185-200.

Moyer, R., B. Riegl, K. Banks, and R. Dodge. 2003. Spatial patterns and ecology of benthic communities on a high-latitude south Florida (Broward C ounty, USA) reef system. Coral Reefs (22):447-464.

Multer, H.G. and J.D. Milliman. 1967. Geologic aspect s of sabellarian reefs, s outheastern Florida. Bull

Mar. Sci. 17:257-267.

Mumby, P.J., J.D. Hedley, K. Zychaluk, A.R. Harb orne, and P.G. Blackwell. 2006. Revisiting the catastrophic die-off of the urchin Diadema antillarum on Caribbean coral reefs: Fresh insights

on resilience from a simulation model. Ecol. Model. 196:131-148.

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilizati on and migration in juvenile sea turtles, pp. 137-163.

In: P. Lutz and J. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Muthiga, N. and A. Szmant. 1987. The effects of salinity on the rates of aerobic respiration and photosynthesis in the hermatypic coral Siderastrea siderea. Bull. Mar. Biol. 173:539-551.Literature Cited 10-19 

### Nagelkerken, I., M. Dorenbosch, W. Verberk, E. Cocheret de la Morini ère, and G. van der Velde. 2000. Day–night shifts of fishes between shallow-wa ter biotopes of a Caribbean bay, with emphasis on the nocturnal feeding of Haemulidae and Lutja nidae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 194:55–64.

National Academy of Sciences. 1999. Sustaining mari ne fisheries. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Fisher y Management Plan for Atlant ic tunas, swordfish, and sharks, Volume II. National Marine Fisheries Se rvice Division of Highly Migratory Species, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. 302 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Species of Concern, ivory bush coral Oculina varicosa . U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceani c and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 4 pp.

National Research Council. 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 164 pp.

Nelson, W. 1988. Sebastian Inlet rock outcrop reef s biological inventory study. Final report to the U.S. Army Corps of E ngineers, Jacksonville Di strict; Jacksonville, FL.

Nelson, W.G. 1989. Beach nourishment and hard botto m habitats: The case for caution, pp. 109-116. In: S. Tait (ed.), Proc. 1989 National Con f. Beach Preserv. Technol. Florida Shore and

Beach Preserveration Associati on, Tallahassee, FL. 236 pp.

Nelson, W.G. and L. Demetriades. 1992. Pera cariids associated with sabellariid worm rock ( Phragmatopoma lapidosa Kinberg) at Sebastian Inlet, Florida, U.S.A. J. Crust. Bio. 12(4):647-654.

Newell, R.C. 1979. Biology of Intertidal An imals. Paul Elerk Limited, London. 555 pp.

NOAA Fisheries. 2008. Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) species description. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. <www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/staghorncoral.htm>.

Noss, R.F. 1996. Ecosystems as conservation targets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:351.

Odate, S. and J.R. Pawlik. 2007. The role of vanadium in the chemical defense of the solitary tunicate, Phallusia nigra

. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:643-654.

Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, K.J. Jacobs, T. Barnes, and H.E. Fling. 2005. The use of conceptual models to guide ecosystem restoration in South Florida. Wetlands 25(4):795-809.

Ohno, M., S. Arai, and M. Watanabe. 1990. Seaweed succession on artificial reefs on different bottom substrata. J. Appl. Phycol. 2:327-332.

Olla, B.L., J. Atema, C.C. Coutant, P. Decoursey, D. Hansen, J.S. Kittredge, J.J. Magnuson, M.J. Schneider, D. Miller, and W. Vernberg. 1974. Behavioral measures of environmental stress, pp. 1-31. In: G. Cox et al. (comps.), Ma rine Bioassays: Workshop Proceedings. Marine Technology Society, Washington, DC. 308 pp.

O’Neal, W. and J. Pawlik. 2002. A reappraisal of the chemical and physical defenses of Caribbean gorgonian corals against predatory fishes . Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 240:117-126.

Ong, K.S. and J.D. Costlow, Jr. 1970. The effect of salinity and temperature on the larval development

of the stone crab Menippe mercenaria reared in the laboratory. Chesapeake Sci. 11(1):16-29.

Osenberg, C.W. and R.J. Schmitt. 1996. Detecting ecological impacts caused by human activities, pp. 3-16. In: R.J. Schmitt and C.W. Osenberg (eds.), Detecting Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Applications in Coastal Habitats. Academic Press, San Diego.Literature Cited 10-20 

### Osenberg, C.W., B.M. Bolker, J.S. White, C. St. Mary , and J.S. Shima. 2006. Statistical issues and study design in ecological restorations: Lessons l earned from marine reserves, pp. 280-302. In: D.A. Falk, M.A. Palmer, and J.B. Zedler (eds.), Foundations of Restoration Ecology.

Island Press.

Paddack, M.J., R.K. Cowen, and S. Sponaugle. 2006. Gr azing pressure of herbivorous coral reef fishes

on low coral-cover reefs. Coral Reefs 25:461-472.

Paerl, H.W. 2000. Marine plankton, pp. 121-148. In: B.A. Whitton and M. Potts (eds.), The Ecology of Cyanobacteria. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

Palmer, M.A., R.F. Ambrose, and N.L. Poff. 1997. Ec ological theory and community restoration ecology.

Restorat. Ecol. 5:291-300.

Paine, R.T. 1969. The Pisaster-Tegula interaction: Prey patches, predator food preference, and intertidal community structure. Ecology 50(6):950–961.

Pandolfi, J.M., D.R. Robertson, and D.W. Kirtley. 1998. Roles for worms in reefbuilding. Coral Reefs

17:120.

Paris, C.B., R.K. Cowen, R. Claro, and K.C. Li ndeman. 2005. Larval transport pathways from Cuban spawning aggregations (Snappers; Lutjanidae) based on biophysical modeling. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 296:93-106.

Parker, K.R. and J.A. Wiens. 2005. Assessing recovery following environmental accidents: Environmental variation, ecological assumptions, and strategies. Ecol. App. 15(6):2,037-2,051.

Parrish, J.D. 1989. Fish communities of interacting shallow-water habitats in tropical oceanic regions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 58:143-160.

Paul, V.J. and K.L.V. Alstyne. 1992. Activation of chemical defenses in the tropical green algae

Halimeda spp. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 160:191-203.

Paul, V.J., W. Thacker, K. Banks, and S. Golubic. 2005. Benthic cyanobacterial bloom. Impact the reefs of South Florida (Broward County, USA). Coral Reefs 24: 693-697.

Paul, V.J., K.E. Arthur, R. Rits on-Williams, C. Ross, and K. Sharp. 2007. Chemical defenses: From compounds to communities. Biol. Bull. 213:226-251.

Pawlik, J.R. 1986. Specific free fatty acids in duce larval settlement and metamorphosis of the reef-building tube worm Phragmatopoma califomica (Fewkes). J. Exp. Mar. BioI.

Ecol. 102:301-310.

Pawlik, J.R. 1988. Larval settlement and metamorp hosis of sabellariid polychaetes, with special

reference to Phragmatopoma lapidosa , a reef-building species, and Sabellaria floridensis , a non-gregarious species. Bull. Mar. Sci. 43:41-60.

Pawlik, J. 1998. Coral reef spong es: Do predatory fishes affect their distribution? Limnol. Oceanogr. 43(6):1,396-1,399.

Pawlik, J.R. and C.A. Butman. 1993. Settlement of a marine tube worm as a function of current velocity: Interacting effects of hydrodynamics and behavio r. Limnol. Oceanogr. 38(8):1,730-1,740.

Pawlik, J.R. and D.J. Mense. 1994. Larval trans port, food limitation, ontogenetic plasticity, and the recruitment of sabellariid polychaetes, pp. 275- 286. In: W.H. Wilson, Jr., S.A. Stricker, and G.L. Shinn (eds.), Reproduction and Developmen t of Marine Invertebrates. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Pawlik J.R, C.A. Butman, and V.R. Starczak. 1991. Hydrodynamic facilitation of gregarious settlement of a reef-building tube worm. Science 251:421-423.Literature Cited 10-21 

### Perkins, T.H., H.A. Norris, D.T. Wilder, S.D. Ka iser, D.K. Camp, R.E. Matheson, Jr., F.J. Sargent, M.M. Colby, W.G. Lyons, R.G. Gilmore, Jr., J.K. Reed, G.A. Zarillo, K. Connell, M. Fillingfin,

and F.M. Idris. 1997. Distribution of hard-bo ttom habitats on the continental shelf off the

northern and central east coast of Florida. Fi nal report to the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program and NMFS Award No. NA47FS0036. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg.

Pernet, B., P-Y. Qian, G. Rouse, C.M. Y oung, and K.J. Eckelbarger. 2002. Phylum Annelida: Polychaeta. In: C. Young (ed.), Atlas of Ma rine Invertebrate Larvae. Academic Press, London, UK.

Peters, D.J. and W.G. Nelson. 1987. The seasonality and spatial patterns of juvenile surf zone fishes of the Florida east coast. Fl. Sci. 50(2):85-99.

Peterson, B.J., C.M. Chester, F. J. Jochem, and J.W. Fourqurean. 2007. Potential role of sponge communities in controlling phytoplankton blooms in Florida Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

328:93-103.

Peterson, C.H. and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the impacts of beach nourishment. BioScience 55(10):887-896.

Petuch, E.J. 1987. New Caribbean molluscan faunas. The Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. 154 pp.

Petuch, E.J. 1988. Neocene history of tropical American mollusks: Biogeography and evolutionary patterns of tropical western Atlantic Moll usca. The Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. 217 pp.

Phillips, R.C. 1961. Seasonal aspe cts of the marine algal flora of St. Lucie Inlet and adjacent Indian River, Florida. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 24:135-147.

Pickett, S.T.A., J. Kolasa, J.J. Armesto, and S.L. Co llins. 1989. The ecologica l concept of disturbance and its expression at various hierarch ical levels. Oikos 54:129-136.

Pike, L.A. and D.G. Lindquist. 1994. Feeding ecology of spottail pinfish ( Diplodus holbrooki ) from an artificial and natural reef in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:363-374.

Pisut, D. and J. Pawlik. 2002. Anti-predatory chemic al defenses of ascidians: secondary metabolites or inorganic acids? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 270:203-214.

Pitts, P.A. 1999. Effects of summer upwelling on the abundance and vertical distribution of fish and

crustacean larvae off central Florida’s Atlantic coast. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 235:135-146.

Pitts, P.A. and N.P. Smith. 1997. An investigation of summer upwelling across central Florida’s Atlantic

coast: the case for wind stress forcin g. J. Coast. Re s. 5(1):105-110.

Poulin, R. and A. Grutter. 1996. Cleaning symbio ses: Proximate and adaptive explanations. Bioscience 46(7):512-517.

Powell, A.B. and R.E. Robbins. 1998. Ichthyoplan kton adjacent to live-bottom habitats in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Tech. Rep. NMFS 133. 32 pp.

Prekel, S., M. Lybolt, D. Kieckbusch, and C. Kruem pel. 2007. Third annual environmental monitoring report of the mitigative artificial reef, 36 months post-construction of the mitigative artificial reef. Prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineerin g, Inc./Olsen Associates, Inc. for Broward County, Boca Raton, FL. 85 pp.

Prekel, S., A. Delaney, D. Snyder, and C. Kruempel. 2008. Town of Palm Beach Reach 7, Phipps Ocean Park Beach Mitigative Artificial Reef, 36-Month Post-Mitigation and FDEP Hurricane Recovery Dune Restoration Project Biological monitoring Report. Prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 71 pp.Literature Cited 10-22 

### Preston, E.M. and J.L. Preston. 1975. Ecological structure in a West Indian gorgonian fauna. Bull. Mar.

Sci. 25:248-258.

Race, M.S. and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecol. App. 6(1):94-101.

Randall, J.E. 1965. Grazing effect on sea grasses by herbivorous reef fishes in the West Indies. Ecology 46(3):255-260.

Randall, J.E. 1967. Food habits of West Indian reef fishes. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. 5:665-847. University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.

Randall, J.E., R.E. Schroeder, and W.A. Starck, III. 1964. Notes on the biology of the echinoid Diadema

antillarum . Caribb. J. Sci. 4:421-433.

Redmond, A.M. 2000. Dredge and fill regulatory co nstraints in meeting the ecological goals of restoration projects. Ecol. Eng. 15(3-4):181-189.

Reed, J.K. 1982. A proposal for the nearshore reefs adjacent to St. Lucie Inlet, Florida, as a part of an Atlantic Hardbottom Sanctuary.

Reed, J. and P. Mikkelsen. 1987. The molluscan community associated with the scleractinian coral

Oculina varicosa . Bull. Mar. Sci. 40(1):99-131.

Reed, J.K., R.H. Gore, L.E. Scotto, and K.A. Wilson. 1982. Community composition, structure, areal and trophic relationships of decapods asso ciated with shallow-and deep-water Oculina varicosa coral reefs: Studies on decapod crustacea from the Indian River Region of Florida, XXIV. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32(3):761-786.

Reed, D.C., D.R. Laur, and A.W. Ebeling. 1988. Variation in algal dispersal and recruitment: The importance of episodic events. Ecol. Monogr. 58:321-335.

Reed, D.C., S.C. Schroeter, D. Huang, T.W. Anderson, and R.E. Ambrose. 2006. Quantitative assessment of different artificial reef designs in mitigating losses to kelp forest fishes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 78(1):133-150.

Richards, W.J. 1984. Kinds and abundances of fi sh larvae in the Caribbean Sea and adjacent waters. NOAA Tech. Rept., NMFS SSRF-776. 54 pp.

Richardson, A.J. and E.S. Poloczanska. 2008. Under-resourced, under threat. Science
320:1,294-1,295.

Richardson, T.D. and K.M. Brown. 1992. Predation risk and feeding in an intertidal predatory snail. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 142:105-120.

Riggs, S.R., S.W. Snyder, A.C. Hine, S.W. Ellio t, and P.M. Mallette. 1985. Geologic framework of phosphorite resources in Onslow Bay, North Carolina continental shelf. Econom. Geol.

80:716-738.

Rinkevich, B. and Y. Loya. 1987. T he reproduction of the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata II. Synchronization in breeding and seasonalit y of planulae shedding. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 1:145-152.

Ritson-Williams, R., V.J. Paul, and V. Bonito. 2005. Marine benthic cyanobacteria overgrow coral reef organisms. Coral Reefs 24:629.

Robertson, D.R. 1998a. Do coral-r eef fish faunas have a distinctive taxonomic structure? Coral Reefs 17(2):179-186.

Robertson, D.R. 1998b. Population maintenance among tropical reef fishes: Inferences from

small-island endemics. Proc. Nat. Ac ad. Sciences 98(10):5,667-5,670.

Robertson, D.R. and W. Smith-Vane z. 2008. Rotenone: An essential but demonized tool for assessing marine fish diversity. BioScience 58(2):165–170.Literature Cited 10-23 

### Robins, C.R. 1971. Distributional patterns of fishes from coastal and shelf waters of the tropical western Atlantic, pp. 249-255. In: Symposium on Inve stigations and Resources of the Caribbean Sea and Adjacent Regions. Pap. Fish. Resour., FAO, Rome.

Robins, C.R. 1991. Regional diversity among Cari bbean fish species. BioScience 41(7):458-459.

Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and re ef organisms to sedimentation. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 62:185-202.

Rohde, K. 2005. Nonequilibrium Ecology. Cambridge University Press. 223 pp.

Rose, C.S. and M.J. Risk. 1985. Increase in Cliona delatrix infestation of Montastrea cavernosa heads on an organically polluted portion of the Grand Cayman fringing reef. PSZNI Mar Ecol.

6:345-363.

Rotjan, R. and S. Lewis. 2005. Selective predation by parrotfishes on the reef coral Porites asteroides

. MEPS, 305:193-201.

Rudolph, H.D. 1977. A taxonomic study of the pol ychaetous annelids found associated with wormrock

reefs of Phragmatopoma lapidosa Kinberg, 1867, in Pam Beach County. Unpublished manuscript submitted to Florida Atl antic University, Boca Ratón, FL.

Ruple, D.L. 1984. Occurrence of larval fishes in the su rf zone of a northern Gulf of Mexico Barrier island.

Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 18:191-208.

Ruppert, E.E., R.S. Fox, and R.D. Barnes. 2004. Invertebrate Zoology: A Functional Evolutionary Approach. Seventh Edition. Thomson, Brooks/Cole. 963 pp.

Rutzler, K. 1975. The role of burrowing sponges in bioerosion. Oecologia 19:203-219.

Rutzler, K. 2002. Impact of clionid sponges on Caribbean coral reefs. Acta Geol. Hisp. 37:61-72.

Ryland, J. 1997. Reproduction in Zoanthidea (Antho zoa: Hexacorallia). Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 31(1-3):177-188.

Saffo, M.B. 1987. New light on seaweeds. BioScience 37:654-664.

Santelices, B. 1990. Patterns of organizations of intertidal and shallow subtidal vegetation in wave exposed habitats of central Chile. Hydrobiologia 192:35-57.

Sagoff, M.A. 2003. The plaza a nd the pendulum: Two concepts of ecological science. Biology and Philosophy 18:529-552.

Sale, P.F. 1991. Reef fish communities: Open nonequ ilibrial systems, pp: 564-596. In: P.F. Sale (ed.), The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press. 754 pp.

Salmon, M., C. Makowski, C. Christopher, and C. Whel an. 2004. Broward County sea turtle survey: 2004 Pre-construction monitoring of green turt le populations on the nearshore reefs of Broward County, Florida. Coastal Planni ng & Engineering, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

Santelices, B. 1990. Patterns of organizations of intertidal and shallow subtidal vegetation in wave exposed habitats of central Chile. Hydrobiologia 192:35-57.

Santelices, B. and I. Paya. 1989. Digestion survival of algae: some ecological comparisons between free spores and propagules in fecal pellets. J. Phycol. 25:693-699.

Sapp, J. 1999. What is Natural? Coral Reef Cris is. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 304 pp.

Sazima, I., R. Moura, and C. Sazima. 1999. Cleaning activity of juvenile angelfish Pomacanthus paru

, on the reefs of Abrolhos Archipelago, wester n South Atlantic. Environ. Biol. Fish.

56:399-407.

Scheltema, R.S. 1971. Larval dispersal as a means of genetic exchange between geographically separated populations of shallow-water benthic marine gastropods. Biol. Bull. 140:284-322.Literature Cited 10-24 

### Schmid, J.R. 1995. Marine turtle populations on t he east-central coast of Flor ida: results of tagging studies at Cape Canaveral, Florida, 1986-1991. Fish. Bull. 98:139-151.

Schönberg C.H.L. 2002. Pione lampa , a bioeroding sponge in a worm reef. Hydrobiologia 482(1-3):49-68(20).

Schoppe, S. 1991. Echinometra lucunter (Linnaeus) (Echinoid, Echinometridae) als Wireiner komplexen Lebensgemeinschaft im Karibischen Meer. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen, 45:373-379. In: G. Hendler, J.E. Miller, D.L. Pawson, and P.M. Kier (eds.), 1995, Sea Stars, Sea Urchins, and Allies: Echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 390 pp.

Scotto, L. 1979. Larval development of the Cuban stone crab, Menippe nodifrons (Brachyura, Xanthidae), under laboratory conditions with notes on the status of the family Menippidae. Fish. Bull. U.S. 77(2):359-386.

Seaman, W., Jr. 2000. Artificial Reef Evaluation: With Application to Natural Marine Habitats. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 246 pp.

Seaman, W., Jr. and L.M. Sprague. 1991. Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 285 pp.

Searles, R.B. 1984. Seaweed biogeography of the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States. Helgoland

Marine Research 38:259-271.

Searles, R.B. and C.W. Schneider. 1980. Biogeographic affinities of the shallow and deep water benthic marine algae of North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30(3):732-736.

Seed, R. and R.N. Hughes. 1992. Reproductive strategies of epialgal bryozoans. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 22(1-3):291-300.

Serafy, D.K. 1979. Echinoids (Echinodermata: Echino idea). Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises 5(3):120.

Shick, J.M. 1991. A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones. Chapman and Hall. 395 pp.

Shrader-Frechette, K.S. and E.D. McCoy. 1993. Met hod in Ecology. Cambridge University Press. 328 pp.

Shulman, M.J. and J.C. Ogden. 1987. What controls tropical reef fish populations: Recruitment or benthic mortality? An example in the Caribbean reef fish, Haemulon flavolineatum . Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 39:233-242.

Sierra, L. 2001. Trophic biology of the marine fi shes of Cuba. In: R. Claro, K.C. Lindeman, and L.R. Parenti (eds.), Ecology of the Marine Fish es of Cuba. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 257 pp.

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas and keystones: Is single-specie s management passé in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 83:47–257.

Simberloff, D.S. 2004. Community ecology: Is it time to move on? American Naturalist 163( 6):787-799.

Sloan, N.J.B. and E.A. Irlandi. 2007. Burial toleranc es of reef-building sabellarid worms from the east

coast of Florida. J. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 77:337-344.

Smith, N.P. 1981. An investigation of seasonal up welling along the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Harbor
Branch Foundation, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.

Smith, N.P. 1983. Temporal and spatial characte ristics of summer upwelling along Florida’s Atlantic Shelf. Journal of Physical Oceanography 13:1,709-1,715.

Smith-Vaniz, W.F., H.L. Jelks, and L.A. Rocha. 2006. Relevance of cryptic fishes in biodiversity assessments: A case study at Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix. Bull. Mar. Sci. 79(1):17-48.Literature Cited 10-25 

### Solandt, J.L. and A.C. Campbell. 2001. Macroal gal feeding characteristics of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi at Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Caribb. J. Sci. 37:227-238.

Soloviev, A.V., M.E. Luther, and R.H. Weisberg. 2007. Energetic super-tidal oscillations with ~10 hr period on the shelf of southeast Florida: Are t hey a near-resonant baroclinic seiche? Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, Florida; and Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL.

Soong, K. 1991. Sexual reproductive patterns of shallow-water reef corals in Panama. Bull. Mar. Sci. 49(3):832-846.

Soong, K. 1993. Colony size as a species character in massive reef corals. Coral Reefs 12(2):77-83.

Sousa, W.P. 1984. The role of disturbance in na tural communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:353-391.

Sousa, W.P. 2001. Natural disturbance and the dynamics of marine benthic communities, pp. 85-130. In: M.D. Bertness, S.D. Gaines, and M.E. Ha y (eds.), Marine Community Ecology, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC ). 1982. Fishery Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement for coral and coral reefs. Charleston, SC.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final habitat plan for the south Atlantic region: Essential fish habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC. 639 pp.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). In prep. Fishery Ecosystem Plan, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC.

South Carolina Marine Resources Re search Institute and Duke University Marine Laboratory. 1982. South Atlantic OCS area living marine resource s study, year II, Vol. I (190 pp.), Vol. II (143 pp.), Vol. III (263 pp.). Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.

Southeast Florida Coral Reef Ev aluation and Monitoring Project (SECREMP). 2007. Year 4 Final Report. Prepared for FDEP Office of Coasta l and Aquatic Management Areas Coral Reef Conservation Program, Miami, Florida. < www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral /reports/LBSP/SECREMP_F inal_Report_Year4.pdf >

Southeast Florida Coral Reef Ev aluation and Monitoring Project (SECREMP). 2008. Year 5 Final Report. Prepared for FDEP Office of Coasta l and Aquatic Management Areas Coral Reef Conservation Program, Miami, Florida.

Sponaugle, S., R.K. Cowen, A. Shanks, S.G. Morgan, J.M. Leis, J. Pineda, G.W. Boehlert, M.J. Kingsford, K.C. Lindeman, C. Grimes, and J.L. Munro. 2002. Predicting self–recruitment in marine populations: Biophysical correlat es. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70(1):341-376.

Sponaugle, S., J. Fortuna, K. Grorud, and T. Lee. 2003. Dynamics of larval fish assemblages over a shallow coral reef in the Florida Keys. Mar. Biol. 143:175-189.

Starck, W.A. 1970. Biology of the gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus), in the Florida Keys. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. Univ. Miami 10:1-150.

Steneck, R.S. 1982. A limpet-coralline alga associat ion: Adaptations and def enses between a selective herbivore and its prey. Ecology 63:507-522.

Steneck, R.S. and L. Watling. 1982. Feeding cap abilities and limitation of herbivorous molluscs: A functional group approach. Mar. Biol. 68:299-319.

Stewart-Oaten, A. and J.R. Bence. 2001. Tem poral and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71(2):305-339.Literature Cited 10-26 

### Strathmann, R.R., T.P. Hughes, A.M. Kuris, K.C. Lindeman, S.G. Morgan, J.M. Pandolfi, and R.R.

Warner. 2002. Evolution of local-recruitment and its consequences for marine populations. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70(1):377-396.

Strong, D.R., Jr., D. Simberloff, L.G. Abele, and A.B. Thistle (eds.). 1984. Ecological Communities, Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton Univeristy Press, Princeton, NJ. 613 pp.

Suchanek, T. and D. Green. 1981. Interspecific competition between Palythoa caribaeorum and other sessile invertebrates on St. Croix reefs, U.S. Virgin Islands. 4 th 

### International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, 1981, Vol 2.

Sultzman, C. 1990. Coordination Act Report Midt own, Palm Beach, Florida Beach Renourishment Project, DRAFT. June 1990. Prepared for Jacksonvill e District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Sultzman, C. 1997. Fort Pierce Beach Project St. Lucie County, Florida. October 1997. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engine ers, Jacksonville, Florida.

Sustainable Fisheries Act. 1996. Magnuson-Stevens fishery conservation and management act, as amended through October 11, 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-23. 121

pp.

Szmant, A.M. and N.J. Gassman. 1990. The effe cts of prolonged bleeching on the tissue biomass and reproduction of the reef coral Montastrea annularis . Coral Reefs 8:217-224.

Szmant-Froelich, A.M. 1986. Reproductive ecolog y of Caribbean reef corals. Coral Reef 5:43-45.

Tagatz, M.E. 1968a. Biology of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the St. Johns River, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Fishery Bull. 67(1).

Tagatz, M.E. 1968b. Growth of juvenile blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the St. Johns River, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Fishery Bull. 67(2).

Telesnicki, G. and W. Goldberg. 1995. Effects of turbidity on the photosynthesis and respiration of two South Florida reef coral specie s. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57:527-539.

Temkin, M.H. and R.L. Zimmer. 2002. Phylum Bryozoa. In: C. Young (ed.), At las of Marine Invertebrate Larvae. Academic Press, London, UK.

Thayer, G.W., K.A. Bjorndal, J.C. Ogden, S.L. W illiams, and J.C. Zieman. 1984. Roles of larger herbivores in seagrass communities. Estuaries 7:351-376.

Thresher, R.E. 1984. Reproduction in Reef Fish es. TFH Publications, Neptune City, NJ. 399 pp.

Tomascik, T. and F. Sander. 1987. Effects of eutrophication on re ef-building corals. II. Structure of scleractinian coral communities on fringing r eefs, Barbados, West-Indies. Mar. Biol.

94:53-75.

Tunnicliffe, V. 1981. Breakage and propagation of the stony coral Acropora cervicornis . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78(4):2,427-2,431.

Turnigan, R.G., P.C. Wainwright, and D.A. Hensley. 1995. Interpopulation variation in prey use and feeding biomechanics in Caribbean triggerfishes. Oecologia 102:296-304.

Underwood, A.J. 1986. What is a community? pp. 351–367. In: D.M. Raup and D. Jablonski (eds.), Patterns and Processes in the History of Life. Springer-Verlag.

Underwood, A.J. 1990. Experiments in ecology and management: Their logics, functions and interpretations. Austral Ecology 15(4):365-389.

Underwood, A.J. 1996. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances, pp 151-175. In: R.J. Scmitt and C.W. Osenberg (eds.), Detecting Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Applications in Coasta l Habitats. Academic Press, San Diego.Literature Cited 10-27 

### U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Fort Pierce Post-Beach Nourishment Hardbottom Monitoring. Prepared by Dial Cordy and A ssociates Inc., Ponte Verde Beach, FL.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003a. Broward County Shore Protection Project Segments II and III Broward County, Florida. Section 3 - Affected Environment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. 75 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003b. Bi ological Assessment of the Impacts of the Proposed Indian River Sector 7 Beach Restoration Proj ect on Coastal Environments. Indian River County, Florida.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Final Re port: An ocean blueprint for the 21st Century. Washington, DC.

U.S. Executive Order on Coral Reefs. 1998. Executive Order 13089 - Coral Reef Protection. Federal Register 63:32,701-32,703.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. S outh Florida multi-species recovery plan, Atlanta, Georgia. 2,172 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Invest igations of mitigation for coral reef impacts in the

U.S. Atlantic: South Florida and the Caribbean. Final Report. U.S. Fishd and Wildlife Service, Region IV, Atlanta, GA. 87 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985. Short-term methods for estimating chronic toxicity of effluents to receiving waters to fr eshwater organisms. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-85/014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Framework for ecologica l risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA 630/R-92/001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas , recovery plan. Southeast U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 32 pp.

Vadas, R.L. 1977. Preferential feeding: An optimiz ation strategy in sea urchins. Ecol. Monogr.

47:337-371.

van Alstyne, K.L., J.M. Ehlig, and S.L. Whitman. 1999. Feeding preferences for juvenile and adult algae depend on algal stage and herbivore species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 180:179-185.

van den Hoek, C. 1975. Phytogeographic provinces alon g the coasts of the northern Atlantic Ocean. Phycologia 14(4):317-330.

van den Hoek, C., A.M. Cortel-Breeman, and J.B.W. Wand ers. 1975. Algal zonation in the fringing coral reef of curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, in rela tion to zonation of corals and gorgonians. Aquat.

Bot. 1:269-308.

van Dolah, R.F., D.M. Knott, and D.R. Calder. 1984. Ecological effects of rubble weir jetty construction at Murrells Inlet, South Carolina; Volume I: Colonization and community development on new jetties. Coastal Engineer Waterways Experim ent Station, Vicksburg, MS. 143 pp.

van Montfrans, J. 1981. Decapod crustaceans associated with worm rock ( Phragmatopoma lapidosa Kinberg) in southern Florida. M.S. thesis, Fl orida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 290 pp.

Van Veghel, M.L.J. and R.P.M. Bak. 1993. Intraspeci fic variation of a dominant Caribbean reef building

coral Montastrea annularis : Genetic, behavioral and morphometric aspects. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 92:255-265

Vare, C.N. 1991. A survey, analysis, and evaluat ion of the nearshore reefs situated off Palm Beach County, Florida. M.S. thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 165 pp.

Vargas-Angel, B., J.D. Thomas, and S.M. Hoke. 2003. High-latitude Acropora cervicornis thickets off Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Coral Reefs 22:465-473.Literature Cited 10-28 

### Vargas-Angel, B., S.B. Colley, S.M. Hoke, and J.D. Thomas. 2006. The reproductive seasonality and gametogenic cycle of Acropora cervicornis off Broward County, Florida, USA. Coral Reefs 25(1):110-122.

Vermaas, W.F. 2001. Photosynthesis and respiratio n in cyanobacteria, p.7. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Vestal, B. and A. Rieser. 1995. Part I – Syntheses , with annotated bibliography. In: Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal Environmental Impacts. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 6.

Victor, B.C. 1991. Settlement strategies and bioge ography of reef fishes, pp. 231-260. In: P.F. Sale (ed.), The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 754 pp.

Vollmer, S. and S. Palumbi. 2007. Restricted gene flow in the Caribbean staghorn coral Acropora

cervicornis : Implications for the recovery of endangered reefs. J. Hered. 98(1):40-50.

Voultsiadou, E., M.-M. Pyrounaki, and C. Chintiroglou. 2007. The habitat engineering tunicate

Microcosmus sabatieri Roule, 1885 and its associated peracarid epifauna. Estuar. Coast.

Shelf Sci. 74:197-204.

Wallington, T.J., R.J. Hobbs, and S.A. Moore. 2005. Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: A review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society 10:1-15.

Wallis, A.D., E. Aquelles, D. Lampe, and M. M eehan. 2000. Imaging the region: South Florida via indicators and public opinions. FAU/FIU Joint Center for Urban and Environmental Problems. 135 pp.

Walpole, M.J. and N. Leader-Williams. 2002. Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiv. Conserv. 11(3):543-547.

Walter, G.H. and R. Hengeveld. 2000. The structure of the two ecological paradigms. Acta

Biotheoretica 48:15-46.

Walton Smith, F.G., R.H. Williams, and C.C. Davis. 1950. An ecological survey of the subtropical inshore waters adjacent to Miami. Ecology 30(1):119-146.

Wanless, H.R. and K.L. Maier. 2007. An evaluati on of beach renourishment sands adjacent to reefal settings, southeast Florida. Southeast. Geol. 45(1):25-42.

Ward, S. 1995. The effect of damage on the gr owth, reproduction and storage of lipids in the

scleractinian coral Pocillopora damicornis (Linnaeus). J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 187:193-206.

Ward-Paige, C.A., M.J. Risk, O.A. Sherwood, and W.C. Jaap. 2005. Clionid sponge surveys on the Florida reef tract suggest land-based nutri ent inputs. Mar. Poll. Bull. 51:570-579.

Watanabe, J.T. 2002. The ecology of the southern oyster drill, Stramonita haemostoma (Gastropoda: Muricidae), on Florida sabellariid worm reefs. Ph.D. dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne.

Watanabe, J.T. and C.M. Young. 2006. Feeding habi ts and phenotypic changes in proboscis length in the southern oyster drill, Stramonita haemostoma (Gastropoda: Muricidae), on Florida sabellariid worm reefs. Mar. Biol. 148:1,021-1,029.

Werner, E.E. and J.F. Gilliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:393-425.

Wershoven, R. and J. Wershoven. 1988. A survey of juvenile green turtles and their resting and foraging habitats off Broward County, Florida. Unpubl ished report to the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Resources, Broward County, FL. 35 pp.Literature Cited 10-29 

### Wershoven, R.W. and J.L. Wershoven. 1989. Assessment of juvenile green turtles and their habitat in Broward County, Florida waters, pp. 185-187. In: S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson, (eds.), Ninth A nnual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology, Jekyll Island, GA.

Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992a. Juvenile green turtles in their nearshore habitat of Broward County, Florida: A five year review , pp. 121-123. In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (eds.), Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Jekyll Island,

GA.

Wershoven, R.W. and J.L. Wershov en. 1992b. Stomach content analysis of stranded juvenile and adult green turtles in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, pp. 124-126. In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (ed.), Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Jekyll Island, GA.

Whelan, C.L. and J. Wyneken. 2007. Estimating pre dation levels and site-specific survival of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) from south Florida beaches. Copeia 3:745-754.

White, P.S. and J.L. Walker. 1997. Approximati ng nature’s variation: Selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 5(4):338-349.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. Macmillan, NY. 385 pp.

Wiens, J.A. 1984. On understandi ng an non-equilibrium world: myth and reality in community patterns and processes, pp. 439-457. In: D.R. Strong, Jr., D. Simberloff, L.G. Abele, and A.B. Thistle (eds.), Ecological Communities, Conceptual Is sues and the Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 613 pp.

Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Func. Ecol. 3(4):385-397.

Wiens, J.A. and K.R. Parker. 1995. Analyzing t he effects of accidental environmental impacts: Approaches and assumptions. Ec ol. Applic. 5(4):1,069-1,083.

Wilber, D.H. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effect s of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with rela tion to dredging in estuaries. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 21:855-875.

Wilber, P. and M. Stern. 1992. A re-examination of infaunal studies that ac company beach nourishment projects, pp. 242-256. Proc. 1992 Na tl. Conf. Beach Preserv. Tech.

Williams, S. and J.E. Smith. 2007. A global review of the distribution, taxonomy, and impacts of

introduced seaweeds. Annu. Re v. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38:327–359.

Wilson, E.O. 1999. The Diversity of Life: With a New Introduction. W. W. Norton & Company, NY. 424 pp.

Wiman, S.K. and W.G. McKendree. 1975. Distribution of Halimeda sediments and plants on and around a patch reef in Old Rhodes Key, Florida. Journal of Sedimentary Research 45:415-421.

Winston, J. 1982. Marine bryozoans (Ectoprocta) of the Indian River area (Florida). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 173, Article 2.

Witherington, B., M.J. Brese tte, and R.M. Herren. 2006a. Chelonia mydas - green turtle, pp. 90-104. In: P.A. Meylan (ed.), Chelonian Research Monog raphs. Chelonia Research Foundation.

Witherington, B.E., R.M. Herren, and M.J. Bresette. 2006b. Caretta caretta - loggerhead sea turtle, pp. 74-89. In: P.A. Meylan (ed.), Cheloni an Research Monographs. Chelonia Research

Foundation.

Wood, L.D. 2006. A preliminary assessment of hawksbill turtles ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) in Palm Beach County waters, p. 336. In: M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (eds.), Twenty-Sixth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Island of Crete, Greece.Literature Cited 10-30 

### Woodley, J.D., E.A. Chornesky, P. A. Clifford, J.B.C. Jackson, L.S. Kaufman, N. Knowlton, J.C. Lang, M.P. Pearson, J.W. Porter, M.C. Rooney, K.W. Rylaarsdam, V.J. Tunnicliffe, C.M. Wahle, J.L. Wulff, A.S.G. Curtis, M.D. Dallmeyer, B.P. Jupp, M.A.R. Koehl, J. Neigl, and E.M. Sides. 1981. Hurricane Allen’s impact on Jamaican coral reefs. Science 214(4522):750-755.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Toxic cya nobacteria in water: A guide to their public health consequences, monitoring and management. St. Edmundsbury Press, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. 400 pp.

Wu, J. and O.L. Loucks. 1995. From the balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology 70(4):439-466.

Wulff, J.L. 1991. Asexual fragmentation, genotype su ccess, and population dyna mics of erect branching sponges. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149(2):227-247.

Wulff, J.L. 2006. Ecological in teractions of mari ne sponges. Can. J. Zool. 84:146-166.

Yoshioka, P.M. 1996. Variable recruitment and its effects on the population and community structure of shallow-water gorgonians. Bu ll. Mar. Sci. 59(2):433-443.

Young, C.M. and F-S. Chia. 1987. Abundance and di stribution of pelagic larvae as influenced by predation, behavior, and hydrograph ic factors, pp. 385-464. In: A. Giese (ed.), Reproduction of Marine Invertebrates, Vol IX. Blackwe ll Scientific Publicat ions, Palo Alto, CA.

Young, R.T. 1945. Stimulation of spawning in the mussel ( Mytilus californicus ). Ecol. 27:354-363.

Zacharias, M.A. and J.C. Roff. 2001. Use of fo cal species in marine co nservation and management: A review and critique. Aquatic Conservation : Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11:59-76.

Zajac, R.N. 1985. The effects of sublethal predation on reproduction in the spionid polychaete Polydora ligni (Webster). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 88:1-19

Zale, A.V. and S.G. Merrifield. 1989. Species profile s: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (south Florida) -- Reef-building tube worm. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biol. Report 82(11.115). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-824. 12 pp.

Zardus, J. and A. Martel. 2002. Phylum Mollusca: Bivalvia. In: C. Young (ed.), Atlas of Marine
Invertebrate Larvae. Academic Press, London, UK.

Zedler, J.B. 2000. Progress in wetland restor ation ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15(10):402-407.

Zilberberg, C., M. Maldonado, and A.M. Sole-Cava. 2006. Assessment of the relative contribution of asexual propagation in a population of the coral-excavating sponge Cliona delitrix from the Bahamas. Coral Reefs 25(2):297-301.Appendices 

# A p p e n d i c e sAppendices A-1 

# A p p e n d i x AAppendices A-2Table A.1. Number of macroalgal species found during studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom habitat, by county. Data include location ofstudy (region), species found, zone of sampling, method used tocollect data (i.e., natural reef or artificial reef, beach nourishmentmonitoring, or foraging analysis, etc.). Color-coding indicates that similar study methods were used.CountyRegionSpeciesCountIntertidalSubtidalInshoreOffshorePCM - TStudy MethodSeason/YearSourceBrevard coastline24√√Video, randompoint analysisSummer 2005Continental ShelfAssociates, Inc.,2005aSatellite Beach37√PALM boxesSummer 2007Holloway-Adkinsand McCarthy,2007Nearshore reef,Brevard County24√Lavage-percentcomposition2005Holloway-Adkins,2005BrevardBrevard County 22McCarthy,unpublishedVero Beach109√√TransectSummer 1974Juett et al., 1976Sebastian46√√Lavage-percentcompositionSummer1998–2000Holloway-Adkins,200128√Quadrat-percentcompositionGilbert, 2005Indian RiverIndian River 42McCarthy,unpublishedHutchinson Island119√Trawl/benthicgrabSeptember 1971- August 1974Moffler and vanBreedveld, 1979Fort Pierce29√√1997Continental ShelfAssociates, Inc.,1997St. LucieFort Pierce-SC 51McCarthy,unpublishedSt. Lucie Inlet41√Transect (driftalgae included)Spring/Fall1957-1959Phillips, 1961Nearshore Mitigation Reef9√√(Post)Video, phototransectSummer2001-2006Harris, 2006;Harris et al., 2007MartinMartin County 9McCarthy,unpublishedTable A.1. (Continued).

Appendices A-3CountyRegionSpeciesCountIntertidalSubtidalInshoreOffshorePCM - TStudy MethodSeason/YearSourceBoca Raton artificial reef10√Quadrat-percentcoverMonthlyCummings, 1990Boca Raton nearshorereef23√TransectJuly 1987 -August 1990Vare, 1991Palm Beach County11√Lavage-percentcompositionAugust -November 2003Makowski, 2004Boca Raton17√Grab samplesSpring 2004Jones et al., 2004Artificial reefs:(1) Juno Geogrid(2) Jupiter Cloth Reef Rock(3) Jupiter Concrete(4) Jupiter ShallowConcrete(5) Coral Cove Rock12√√(Post)Video, randompoint analysisFall2001-2004Continental ShelfAssociates, Inc.,2005b, 2006PalmBeachCounty 26NorthJupiter9JupiterArea6SouthJupiter 6Juno8Palm BeachMacArthur Beach 5McCarthy,unpublishedBroward County10√Necropsy andlavage1992Wershoven andWershoven,1992bFort Lauderdale√√√Lauderdale by the Sea√√√Pompano Beach√√√John U. Lloyd State Park√√√Dania√√√Hollywood/Hallandale27 (total)√√√AGRRAprotocol,in-situquadrat analysisSummer 2001U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers,2003aPort Everglades-Broward/Miami-Dade County100√√Transect,BEAMRquadrat, video,random pointanalysisSummer/Fall2004Coastal Planning& Engineering,Inc., 2006BrowardShoreline(Segments I, II, III)6√√Visual transectSummer 2004Salmon et al.,2004Appendices A-4 

### Table A.2. Families, genera, and numbers of species within each genera of macroalgae and cyanobacteria documented in the studies c onducted on nearshore hardbottom of the east

Florida coast listed in Table A.1 . A zero under “Number of Species” column indicates that algae were identified only to genus level.

Family Genus Number of Species Chlorophyta
Bryopsis 2

Caulerpaceae Caulerpa 12 Chaetomorpha 3 Cladaphora 6 Cladophoraceae

Rhizoclonium 2

Codiaceae Codium 5 Batophora 1 Cymopolia 1 Dasycladus 1 Dasycladaceae

Neomeris 1

Derbesiaceae Derbesia 1

Halimedaceae Halimeda 6 Dictyosphaeria 0 Siphonocladus 1 Siphonocladaceae

Ventricaria 1

Avrainvillea 2

Penicillus 1 Udoteaceae

Udotea 6

Ulvaceae Ulva 6

Ulvellaceae Entocladia 1 Rhodophyta

Acanthaceae Acanthophora 2

Acrochaetiaceae Acrochaetium 2 Areschougiaceae Eucheuma 2 Asparagaceae Asparagopsis 1

Callithamnion 2

Centroceras 1

Ceramium 9

Crouania 1

Griffithsia 1 Spermothamnion 3 Spyridia 3 Ceramiaceae

Wrangelia 2 Champiaceae Champia 1 Compsopogonaceae Compsopogon 1 Amphiroa 4

Fosliella 2

Jania 4 Lithophyllum 0 Corallinaceae

Titanophora 1 Corynomorphaceae Grateloupia 1 Cystocloniaceae Hypnea 5 Dasya 6
Dasyopsis 1 Dictyurus 1 Dasyaceae

Heterosiphonia 2

Delesseriaceae Nitophyllum 1

Dumontiaceae Dudresnya 1 Erythropeltidaceae Erythrotrichia 1

### Table A.2. (Continued).

Appendices A-5 Family Genus Number of Species

Galaxaura 4 Galaxauraceae Scinaia 1

Gelidiella 3 Gelidiopsis 3

Gelidium 3 Gelidiaceae

Pterocladia 2 Gigartinaceae Gigartina 1

Gracilaria 16 Gracilariaceae Hydropuntia 1 Halymeniaceae Cryptonemia 2 Halymeniaceae Halymenia 3 Liagoraceae Liagora 2

Lomentariaceae Lomentaria 1 Peyssonneliaceae Peyssonnelia 1 Polyphysaceae Acetabularia 4 Pyraloidea Chondria 8 Chondrocanthus prev. Laurencia 1 Bostrychia 2 Botryocladia 4
Bryocladia 1 Bryothamnion 2 Digenia 1

Laurencia 8 Polysiphonia 5 Rhodomelaceae

Herposiphonia 1

Asteromenia 1 Chrysymenia 2 Rhodymeniaceae
Rhodymenia 2 Agardhiella 2 Neoagardhiella 0 Solieriaceae

Solieria 2

Ernodesmis 1 Valoniaceae Valonia 1

Wurdemanniaceae Wurdemannia 1 Phaeophyta

Bibionidae Dilophus 1

Chordariaceae Hydroclathrus 1
Dictyopteris 2 Dictyota 17
Lobophora 1

Padina 6 Spatoglossum 1 Dictyotaceae

Stypopodium 1
Ectocarpaceae Ectocarpus 1 Pylaiellaceae Bachelotia 1 Sargassaceae Sargassum 7

Scarabaeoidea Hincksia 4 Colpomenia 1 Scytosiphonaceae Rosenvingea 2 Sphacelariaceae Sphacelaria 2

### Table A.2. (Continued).

Appendices A-6 Family Genus Number of Species Cyanophyta

Chroococcaceae Anacystis 4 Entophysalidaceae Entophysalis 1 Euphorbiaceae Anabaena 1

Hormothamnion 1 Nostocaceae Nodularia 1 Lyngbya 0

Microcoleus 3 Oscillatoriaceae

Oscillatoria 1

Phormidiaceae Porphyrosiphon 1

Rivulariaceae Calothrix 2

Schizotrichaceae Schizothrix 2

Total Families 57

Total Genera 108 Total Species 277Appendices A-7 

### Table A.3. Genera and numbers of species of ma croalgae and cyanobacteria identified within genera, by county, documented in the studies conducted on nearshore hardbottom of the east Florida

coast listed in Table A.1 . Genera are listed by highest frequency of occurrence among

counties.

Genus Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward Number of

Counties in which

Species were

Present

Bryopsis 1 1 1 1 1 2 6

Caulerpa 2 9 9 2 8 6 6

Ceramium 1 4 5 3 1 5 6

Codium 1 2 5 3 4 3 6

Dictyota 2 4 7 2 3 12 6

Gelidium 2 3 2 2 2 2 6

Gracilaria 2 9 12 6 2 8 6

Laurencia 3 4 5 2 3 4 6

Padina 1 4 3 1 3 3 6

Ulva 3 5 2 4 1 1 6

Bryothamnion 2 3 2 1 3 5

Cladaphora 1 4 2 2 2 5

Dictyopteris 2 2 1 1 2 5

Gelidiopsis 2 3 1 2 1 5

Halimeda 1 2 1 4 8 5

Hypnea 1 5 5 1 4 5

Jania 1 2 4 1 3 5

Sargassum 2 5 1 1 2 5

Acanthophora 2 2 2 1 4

Agardhiella 1 2 1 1 4

Botryocladia 3 2 1 3 4

Bryocladia 1 1 1 1 4

Chaetomorpha 1 2 1 1 4

Chondria 3 4 6 1 4

Pterocladia 1 5 4 1 4

Spyridia 1 2 1 1 4

Acetabularia 1 1 3 3

Amphiroa 2 1 3 3

Bostrichia 1 1 1 3

Centroceras 1 1 1 3

Champia 1 1 1 3

Dasya 5 2 4 3

Erythrotrichia 1 1 1 3

Galaxaura 1 1 1 3

Halymenia 1 3 4 3

Heterosiphonia 1 2 1 3

Liagora 1 1 2 3

Lomentaria 1 1 1 3

Rhizoclonium 2 1 1 3

### Table A.3. (Continued).

Appendices A-8 Genus Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward Number of

Counties in which

Species were

Present

Rhodymenia 2 2 1 3

Scinaia 1 2 1 3

Solieria 1 2 2 3

Sphacelaria 1 1 1 3

Udotea 2 2 6 3

Valonia 1 1 1 3

Acrochaetium 2 1 2

Avrainvillea 1 2 2

Calcareous green 1 1 2

Calothrix 1 1 2

Chondrocanthus (Laurencia) 1 1 2

Chrysymenia 1 1 2

Colpomenia 1 2 2

Crouania 1 1 2

Cryptonemia 2 1 2

Dascycladus 1 1 2

Eucheuma 2 3 2

Fosliella 2 1 2

Griffithsia 1 1 2

Hincksia 4 2 2

Lobophora 1 1 2

Lyngbya 1 1 2

Microcoleus 2 1 2

Neomeris 1 2 2

Nitophyllum 1 1 2

Penicillus 1 1 2

Rosenvingea 1 2 2

Schizothrix 2 2 2

Spatoglossum 1 1 2

Spermothamnion 1 2 2

Unidentified green 2 2 2

Unidentified red 1 1 2

Wrangelia 1 2 2

Anabaena 1 1

Anacystis 4 1

Asparagopsis 1 1

Asteromenia 1 1

Bachelotia 1 1

Batophora 1 1

Callithamnion 2 1

Coralline red 1 1

Corallinaceae 1 1

### Table A.3. (Continued).

Appendices A-9 Genus Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward Number of

Counties in which

Species were

Present

Cymopolia 2 1

Dasyopsis 1 1

Derbesia 1 1

Dictyosphaeria 1 1

Dictyurus 1 1

Digenia 1 1

Dilophus 1 1

Dudresnya 1 1

Ectocarpus 1 1

Entocladia 1 1

Entophysalis 1 1

Ernodesmis 1 1

Filamentous brown 1 1

Filamentous green 1 1

Filamentous red 1 1

Gelidiaceae 1 1

Gelidiella 4 1

Gigartina 1 1

Grateloupia 1 1

Herposiphonia 1 1

Hormothamnion 1 1

Hydroclathrus 1 1

Hydropuntia 1 1

Lithophyllum 1 1

Neoagardhiella 1 1

Nodularia 1 1

Oscillatoria 1 1

Peyssonnelia 1 1

Polysiphonia 1 1

Porphyrosiphon 1 1

Siphonocladus 1 1

Stypopodium 1 1

Titanophora 1 1

Unidentified turf 1 1

Unidentified veg. 1 1

Ventricaria 1 1

Wurdemannia 1 1Appendices A-10Table A.4. The number of species and percent composition of sheet functional form group macroalgae in studies on nearshore hardbottom. Colorshading indicates similar study methods were used. High andlow percent composition among similar studies are in bold.SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofSheet SpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005aBREVARDInter- and subtidalcombined32412.5Summer 2005Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHShallow subtidal21216.72001-2004Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHSubtidal artificialVideo transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverHarris, 2006;Harris et al., 2007MARTINIntertidal1911.1Summer 2001-2006Visual transect, video and still frameCoastal Planning &Engineering, Inc., 2006BROWARDSubtidal/artificial1310013Summer/Fall 2004Transect, BEAMR quadrat, Video,random pointJuett et al., 1976INDIAN RIVERIntertidal41093.7Summer 1974TransectPhillips, 1961ST. LUCIEStation 1, just north ofSt. Lucie Inlet on oceanside64114.6SP/Fall/1957-1959Transects (drift algae are included t)Vare, 1991PALM BEACHIntertidal1234.4July 1987-August 1990TransectSalmon et al., 2004BROWARDSubtidal-preconstruction0602004Visual TransectHolloway-Adkins andMcCarthy, 2007BREVARDSubtidal/artificial43710.8Summer 2007Percent composition on settlementplatesHolloway-Adkins, 2005BREVARDIntertidal2248.32005Lavage - Percent compositionHolloway-Adkins, 2001INDIAN RIVERIntertidal54610.9Summer 1998-2000Lavage - Percent compositionMakowski, 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal31127.3August-November2003Lavage - Percent compositionWershoven andWershoven, 1992bBROWARDIntertidal11010YR/1992Lavage - Percent composition andlavageGilbert, 2005INDIAN RIVERSubtidal42814.3Quadrat - Percent compositiontransects waters 3.5 to 4.0mCummings, 1990PALM BEACHIntertidal artificial reef21020MonthlyQuadrat - Percent cover and speciesTable A.4. (Continued).

Appendices A-11SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofSheet SpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDIntertidal2277.4AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDSubtidal(species puttogether)(species puttogether)AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisMoffler and van Breedveld,1979ST. LUCIEIntertidal61195.04September 1971-August 1974Trawl and benthic grab samples(includes drift)Jones et al., 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal1175.9SP/2004Grab samplesContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 1997ST. LUCIEIntertidal 5 2917.2 1997McCarthy, unpublishedBREVARD2 22 9.1McCarthy, unpublishedINDIAN RIVERIntertidal 3 42 7.1McCarthy, unpublishedST. LUCIEFort Pierce 8 51 15.7McCarthy, unpublishedMARTIN1 9 11.1McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHPalm Beach County 0 26 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHNorth Jupiter 1 9 11.1McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHSouth Jupiter 0 6 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHJuno 1 8 12.5McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHMacArthur Beach 0 5 0Appendices A-12Table A.5. The number of species and percentcomposition of filamentous functional form group macroalgae in studies on nearshore hardbottom.Color shading indicates similar study methods were used. Highand low percent composition among similar studies are in bold.SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofFilamentousSpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005aBREVARDInter- and subtidalcombined52420.8Summer 2005Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHShallow subtidal01202001-2004Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHSubtidal artificialVideo transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverHarris et al., 2007MARTINIntertidal1911.1Summer 2001-2006Visual transect, video and still frameCoastal Planning &Engineering, Inc., 2006BROWARDSubtidal/artificial2010020Summer/Fall 2004Transect, BEAMR quadrat, Video,random pointJuett et al., 1976INDIAN RIVERIntertidal3810934.9Summer 1974TransectPhillips, 1961ST. LUCIEStation 1, just north ofSt. Lucie Inlet on oceanside144134.2SP/Fall/1957-1959Transects (drift algae are included)Vare, 1991PALM BEACHIntertidal2238.7July 1987-August1990TransectSalmon et al., 2004BROWARDSubtidal-preconstruction2633.32004Visual TransectHolloway-Adkins andMcCarthy, 2007BREVARDSubtidal/artificial133735.1Summer 2007Percent composition on settlementplatesHolloway-Adkins, 2005BREVARDIntertidal82433.32005Lavage - Percent compositionHolloway-Adkins, 2001INDIAN RIVERIntertidal164634.8Summer 1998-2000Lavage - Percent compositionMakowski, 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal41136.3August-November2003Lavage - Percent compositionWershoven andWershoven, 1992bBROWARDIntertidal11010YR/1992Lavage - Percent composition andnecropsyGilbert, 2005INDIAN RIVERSubtidal62821.4Quadrat - Percent compositiontransects waters 3.5 to 4.0mCummings, 1990PALM BEACHIntertidal artificial reef11010MonthlyQuadrats - Percent cover and speciesTable A.5. (Continued).

Appendices A-13SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofFilamentousSpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDIntertidal72725.9AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDSubtidal(species puttogether)(species puttogether)AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisMoffler and vanBreedveld, 1979ST. LUCIEIntertidal3511929.4September 1971-August 1974Trawl and benthic grab samples (driftincluded)Jones et al., 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal51729.4SP/2004Grab samplesContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 1997ST. LUCIEIntertidal 7 51 13.7 1997McCarthy, unpublishedBREVARD5 22 22.7McCarthy, unpublishedINDIAN RIVERIntertidal 2 42 4.8McCarthy, unpublishedST. LUCIEFort Pierce 7 51 13.7McCarthy, unpublishedMARTIN5 26 19.2McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHPalm Beach County 0 9 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHNorth Jupiter 0 6 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHSouth Jupiter 0 8 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHJuno 0 5 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHMacArthur Beach 0 5 0Appendices A-14Table A.6. The number of species and percent composition of coarsely-branched functional form group macroalgae in studies on nearshorehardbottom. Color shading indicates similar study methods were used. High and low percent composition among similar studies arein bold.SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofCoarsely-Branched SpeciesTotal Numberof SpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005aBREVARDInter- and subtidalcombined112445.8Summer 2005Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHShallow subtidal81266.72001-2004Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHSubtidal artificialVideo transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverHarris et al., 2007MARTINIntertidal3933.3Summer 2001-2006Visual transect, video and still frameCoastal Planning &Engineering, Inc., 2006BROWARDSubtidal/artificial2610026Summer/Fall 2004Transect, BEAMR quadrat, Video,random pointJuett et al., 1976INDIAN RIVERIntertidal2210920.2Summer 1974TransectPhillips, 1961ST. LUCIEStation 1, just north ofSt. Lucie Inlet on oceanside84119.5SP/Fall/1957-1959Transects (drift algae are included)Vare, 1991PALM BEACHIntertidal92339.1July 1987-August 1990TransectSalmon et al., 2004BROWARDSubtidal-preconstruction1616.72004Visual TransectHolloway-Adkins andMcCarthy, 2007BREVARDSubtidal/artificial143737.8Summer 2007Percent composition on settlementplatesHolloway-Adkins, 2005BREVARDIntertidal82433.32005Lavage - Percent compositionHolloway-Adkins, 2001INDIAN RIVERIntertidal124626Summer 1998-2000Lavage - Percent compositionMakowski, 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal1119.1August-November2003Lavage - Percent compositionWershoven and Wershoven,1992bBROWARDIntertidal41040YR/1992Lavage - Percent compositionGilbert, 2005INDIAN RIVERSubtidal92832.1Quadrat - Percent compositiontransects waters 3.5 to 4.0 mTable A.6. (Continued).

Appendices A-15SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofCoarsely-Branched SpeciesTotal Numberof SpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodCummings, 1990PALM BEACHIntertidal artificial reef31030MonthlyQuadrats - Percent cover and speciesU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDIntertidal92733.3AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDSubtidal(species puttogether)(species puttogether)AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisMoffler and van Breedveld,1979ST. LUCIEIntertidal3711931.1September 1971-August 1974Trawl and benthic grab samples (driftincluded)Jones et al., 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal51729.4SP/2004Grab samplesContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 1997ST. LUCIEIntertidal 9 29 31.03 1997McCarthy, unpublishedBREVARD11 22 50McCarthy, unpublishedINDIAN RIVERIntertidal 9 42 21.4McCarthy, unpublishedST. LUCIEFort Pierce 15 51 29.4McCarthy, unpublishedMARTIN3 9 33.3McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHPalm Beach County 8 26 30.8McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHNorth Jupiter 2 9 22.2McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHSouth Jupiter 2 6 33.3McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHJuno 3 8 37.5McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHMacArthur Beach 1 5 20Appendices A-16Table A.7. The number of species and percent composition of thick-leathery functional form group macroalgae in studies on neaershorehardbottom. Color shading indicates similar study methods were used. High and low percent composition among similar studies arein bold.SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofThick-LeatherySpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005aBREVARDInter- and subtidalcombined42416.7Summer 2005Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent cover analysisContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHShallow subtidal1128.32001-2004Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent cover analysisContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHSubtidal artificial0120Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverHarris et al., 2007MARTINIntertidal4944.4Summer 2001-2006Visual transect, video and still frameCoastal Planning &Engineering, Inc., 2006BROWARDSubtidal/artificial2410024Summer/Fall 2004Transect, BEAMR quadrat, Video,random pointJuett et al., 1976INDIAN RIVERIntertidal1810916.5Summer 1974TransectPhillips, 1961ST. LUCIEStation 1, just north ofSt. Lucie Inlet on oceanside94122SP/Fall/1957-1959Transects (drift algae are included)Vare, 1991PALM BEACHIntertidal42317.4July 1987-August 1990TransectSalmon et al., 2004BROWARDSubtidal-preconstruction3650.002004Visual TransectHolloway-Adkins andMcCarthy, 2007BREVARDSubtidal/artificial53713.5Summer 2007Percent composition on settlementplatesHolloway-Adkins, 2005BREVARDIntertidal52420.82005Lavage - Percent compositionHolloway-Adkins, 2001INDIAN RIVERIntertidal114623.9Summer 1998-2000Lavage - Percent compositionMakowski, 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal21118.2August-November2003Lavage - Percent compositionWershoven andWershoven, 1992bBROWARDIntertidal31030.00YR/1992Lavage - Percent composition andnecropsyGilbert, 2005INDIAN RIVERSubtidal72825Quadrat - Percent compositiontransects waters 3.5 to 4.0 mTable A.7. (Continued).

Appendices A-17SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofThick-LeatherySpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodCummings, 1990PALM BEACHIntertidal artificial reef21020MonthlyQuadrats- Percent cover and speciesU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDIntertidal32711.1AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDSubtidal(species puttogether)(species puttogether)AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisMoffler and van Breedveld,1979ST. LUCIEIntertidal3011925.2September 1971-August 1974Trawl and benthic grab samples (driftincluded)Jones et al., 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal41723.5SP/2004Grab samplesContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 1997ST. LUCIEIntertidal 7 29 24.11997McCarthy, unpublishedBREVARD4 22 18.2McCarthy, unpublishedINDIAN RIVERIntertidal 5 42 11.9McCarthy, unpublishedST. LUCIEFort Pierce 14 51 27.5McCarthy, unpublishedMARTIN4 9 44.4McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHPalm Beach County 7 26 26.9McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHNorth Jupiter 1 9 11.1McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHSouth Jupiter 0 6 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHJuno 0 8 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHMacArthur Beach 1 5 20Appendices A-18Table A.8. The number of species and percent composition of jointed-calcareous functional form group macroalgae in studies on nearshorehardbottom. Color shading indicates similar study methods were used. High and low percent composition among similar studies arein bold.SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber of Jointed-CalcareousSpeciesTotal Numberof SpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005aBREVARDInter- and subtidalcombined0240Summer 2005Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent cover analysisContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHShallow subtidal1128.32001-2004Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHSubtidal artificial0120Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverHarris et al., 2007MARTINIntertidal090Summer 2001-2006Visual transect, video and still frameCoastal Planning &Engineering, Inc., 2006BROWARDSubtidal/artificial1710017Summer/Fall 2004Transect, BEAMR quadrat, Video,random pointJuett et al., 1976INDIAN RIVERIntertidal71096.4Summer1974TransectPhillips, 1961ST. LUCIEStation 1, just north ofSt. Lucie Inlet on oceanside2414.9SP/Fall/1957-1959Transects (drift algae are included)Vare, 1991PALM BEACHIntertidal52321.7July 1987-August 1990TransectSalmon et al., 2004BROWARDSubtidal-preconstruction0602004Visual TransectHolloway-Adkins andMcCarthy, 2007BREVARDSubtidal/artificial1372.7Summer 2007Percent composition on settlementplatesHolloway-Adkins, 2005BREVARDIntertidal1244.22005Lavage - Percent compositionHolloway-Adkins, 2001INDIAN RIVERIntertidal2464.4Summer 1998-2000Lavage - Percent compositionMakowski, 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal1119.1August-November2003Lavage - Percent compositionWershoven and Wershoven,1992bBROWARDIntertidal11010YR/1992Lavage - Percent composition andnecropsyGilbert, 2005INDIAN RIVERSubtidal2287.1Quadrat - Percent compositiontransects waters 3.5 to 4.0 mTable A.8. (Continued).

Appendices A-19SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber of Jointed-CalcareousSpeciesTotal Numberof SpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodCummings, 1990PALM BEACHIntertidal artificial reef21020monthlyQuadrats - Percent cover and speciesU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDIntertidal52718.5AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDSubtidal(species puttogether)(species puttogether)AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisMoffler and van Breedveld,1979ST. LUCIEIntertidal71195.9September 1971-August 1974Trawl and benthic grab samples (driftincluded)Jones et al., 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal0170SP/2004Grab samplesContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 1997ST. LUCIEIntertidal 2 29 6.71997McCarthy, unpublishedBREVARD0 22 0McCarthy, unpublishedINDIAN RIVERIntertidal 1 42 2.4McCarthy, unpublishedST. LUCIEFort Pierce 4 51 7.8McCarthy, unpublishedMARTIN1 9 11.1McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHPalm Beach County 6 26 23.1McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHNorth Jupiter 2 9 22.22McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHSouth Jupiter 1 6 16.7McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHJuno 1 8 12.5McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHMacArthur Beach 1 5 20Appendices A-20Table A.9. The number of species and percentcomposition of crustose functional form group macroalgae in studies on nearshore hardbottom.Color shading indicates similar study methods were used. Highand low percent composition among similar studies are in bold.SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofCrustose SpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005aBREVARDInter- and subtidalcombined0240Summer 2005Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHShallow subtidal01202001-2004Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 2005bPALM BEACHSubtidal artificial0120Video transects, random pointanalysis, percent coverHarris et al., 2007MARTINIntertidal090Summer 2001-2006Visual transect, video and still frameCoastal Planning &Engineering, Inc., 2006BROWARDSubtidal/artificial01000Summer/Fall 2004Transect, BEAMR quadrat, Video,random pointJuett et al., 1976INDIAN RIVERIntertidal21091.8Summer 1974TransectPhillips, 1961ST. LUCIEStation 1, just north of St.Lucie Inlet on ocean side0410SP/Fall/1957-1959Transects (drift algae are included)Vare, 1991PALM BEACHIntertidal0230July 1987-August 1990TransectSalmon et al., 2004BROWARDSubtidal-preconstruction0602004Visual TransectHolloway-Adkins andMcCarthy, 2007BREVARDSubtidal/artificial0370Summer 2007Percent composition on settlementplatesHolloway-Adkins, 2005BREVARDIntertidal02402005Lavage - Percent compositionHolloway-Adkins, 2001INDIAN RIVERIntertidal0460Summer 1998-2000Lavage - Percent compositionMakowski, 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal0110August-November2003Lavage - Percent compositionWershoven and Wershoven,1992bBROWARDIntertidal0100YR/1992Lavage - Percent composition andnecropsyGilbert, 2005INDIAN RIVERSubtidal0280Quadrat - Percent compositiontransects waters 31/2-4 metersCummings, 1990PALM BEACHIntertidal artificial reef0100MonthlyQuadrats - Percent cover and speciesTable A.9. (Continued).

Appendices A-21SourceLocation/Tidal ZoneNumber ofCrustose SpeciesTotal Number ofSpeciesPercentCompositionSeason/YearStudy MethodU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDIntertidal52718.5AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2003aBROWARDSubtidal(species puttogether)(species puttogether)AGRRA protocol,in-situquadratanalysisMoffler and van Breedveld,1979ST. LUCIEIntertidal01190September 1971-August 1974Trawl and benthic grab samples (driftincluded)Jones et al., 2004PALM BEACHSubtidal0170SP/2004Grab samplesContinental ShelfAssociates, Inc., 1997ST. LUCIEIntertidal barrier islandthat separates IndianRiver Lagoon fromAtlantic0 29 01997McCarthy, unpublishedBREVARD0 22 0McCarthy, unpublishedINDIAN RIVERIntertidal 0 42 0McCarthy, unpublishedST. LUCIEFort Pierce 0 51 0McCarthy, unpublishedMARTIN0 9 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHPalm Beach County 0 26 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHNorth Jupiter 0 9 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHSouth Jupiter 0 6 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHJuno 0 8 0McCarthy, unpublishedPALM BEACHMacArthur Beach 0 5 0Appendices B-1 

# A p p e n d i x BAppendices B-2 

### Table B.1. Presence/absence of invertebrates encount ered in available studies of hardbottom habitats in six counties along the east Florida coast. ● denotes species identified in at least one study within noted county; blank cell denotes species not encountered in any study in noted county. Note that species are listed as identified in t he respective study, and that those highlighted in yellow were not used to determine species counts for the taxonomic groups listed in Chapter 4

.

Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Polychaetes

Anaitidae longipes ●

Anamobaea oerstedii ● ●

Arabella sp. ●

Aricidea sp. ● Armandia agilis ●

Axiothella sp. ● Brachioma nigromaculata ● ● ● Clymenella torquata ●

Decamastus sp. ● Dispio unicata ●

Doruilleidae sp. ● Euclymene sp. ● Eupolymnia crassicornis ● ● Exogone atlantica ● Genetyllis sp. ● Glycera sphyrabrancha ●

Goniadella sp. ● Haplosyllis spongicola ●

Hermodice carunculata ●

Kefersteinia cirrata ● ● Leitoscoplos fragilis ● ●

Lumbrneris sp. ● Macroclymene sp. ● Magelona sp. ● Marphysa sanquinea ●

Mediomastus californiensis ● Megelonna sp. ● Myriochele oculata ● Naineris grubei ●

Nematonereis hebes ● Nepthys squamosa ●

Nereis falsa ●

Nereis lamellose ● Nereis pelagica ●

Notomastus sp. ● Odontosyllis enopla ● Pectinaria gouldii ●

Peresiella sp. ●

Pherusa inflata ● Phragmatopoma lapidosa (caudata) ● ● ● ● ● ●

Pista sp. ● Prionospio cirrifora ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-3 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Prionospio cristata ● Prionospio fallax ● Prionospio pygmaea ●

Pseudovermilia occidentalis ●

Sabella sp. A ●

Sabella sp. B ● Sabellastarte magnifica ●

Sabellidae ●

Saccocirrus sp. ●

Salmacina sp. ● Scolepis squamata ● Sabellaridae Species A ● Serpulidae Species A ● Serpulidae Species B ● Sicyonia brevirostris ● Spiophanes bombyx ● Spiophanes missionensis ● Spirobranchus giganteus ●

Terribellidae sp. ● Unknown species ●

Websterinereis tridentate ●

Anthozoans

Acropora cervicornis ● Acropora palmata ● Agaricia agaricites ● Agaricia fragilis ● Agaricia sp. ●

Cladocora arbuscula ● ● Colpophyllia natans ● ● Dendrogyra cylindrus ●

Dichocoenia stokesii ● ● ● Diploria clivosa ● ● ● Diploria labyrinthiformis ● Diploria sp. ● Diploria strigosa ● ● ● ● Favia fragum ● ● ● Isophyllia sinuosa ● ● ● Isophyllia sp. ●

Madracis decactis ● ● ●

Meandrina meandrites ● ● ●

Montastraea annularis ●

Montastraea franksi ●

Montastraea cavernosa ● ● ●

Montastraea faveolata ● ● ● Mycetophyllia aliciae ● ● ● Mycetophyllia danaana ●

Oculina diffusa ● ● ● ● ●

Oculina robusta ● ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-4 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Oculina varicosa ● ● ● ● ● Phyllangia americana ● ● ● ● ●

Porites astreoides ● ● ● Porites porites ● ● ●

Porites sp. ● Scolymia sp. ●

Siderastrea radians ● ● ● ● ●

Siderastrea siderea ● ● ● ● ●

Siderastrea sp. ● ● ●

Solenastrea bournoni ● ● ● ● Solenastrea hyades ● ● ● Stephanocoenia intersepta ● ● ●

Bunodosoma caveranta ● ● ●

Actinia bermudnesis ● ● ●

Diadumene leucolena ● ● ● Palythoa caribaeorum ● ● ●

Zoanthus sp. ● ● Zoanthus pulchellus ● ●

Briareum asbestinum ● ● ● Carijoa riisei ● ● ● ● Erythropodium caribaeorum ● ● Eunicea calyculata ● ●

Eunicea sp. ● ● ● Gorgonia sp. ● Gorgonia ventalina ● ● ● Leptogorgia hebes ● ● ● ● ● Leptogorgia virgulata ● ● ● ● ●

Muricea sp. ● ● ●

Plexaura flexuosa ● ● Plexaurella grisea ● ● ●

Plexaurella sp. ● Pseudopterogorgia americana ● ● Pseudopterogorgia sp. ● ● ● Pterogorgia anceps ● ● ● Pterogorgia citrina ● ● ● Pterogorgia guadalupensis ● ● ● Pterogorgia sp. ● ●

Unidentified sea rod ●

Zoanthus sp. ● Sponges

Agelas conifer ● Agelas schmidti ● Agelas sp. ●

Aiolochroia crassi ● Amphimedon compressa ● ● Anthosigmella varians ● ● ● Aplysina cauliformis ● Aplysina fistularis ● ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-5 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Aplysina sp ● c.f. Dysidea etheria ● Calcispongidae sp. ● Callyspongia sp. ● ● Callyspongia vaginalis ●

Chondrilla nucula ● Cinachyra alloclado ● ● Cinachyra sp. ● ●

Cliona celata ●

Cliona delitrix ● ● Cliona lampa ● ● ● ● Cliona lampa forma flavida ● Cliona lampa forma lampa ●

Cliona sp. ● ● ● ●

Cliona viridis ● Desmapsamma sp. ● Diplastrella sp. ● Encrusting sponges ● ● Eurospongia rosea ● Euryspongia rasea ●

Geodia sp. ●

Haliclona sp. ● Halicona(purple) ● Halicona(red) ●

Haloclona rubens ● Holopsamma sp. ●

Iotrochota birotulata ● Ircinia campana ● ● ●

Ircinia fasciculata ●

Ircinia felix ●

Ircinia strobilina ● ●

Ircinia variabilis ●

Lotrochota birotulata ●

Microciona sp. ● ● Microciona spinosa ● Monanchora unguifera ● Niphates digitalis ● Niphates erecta ● ● Niphates sp. ● ● Niphates(purple) ● ● Plakortis angulospiculatus ●

Poecilosclerida spp. ●

Pseudoaxinella lunaecharta ● ● ● Sigmadocia caerulea ● Spheciospongia vesparium ● ● Spheciospongia vesparsa ● Spinosella plicifera ● Spinosella vaginalis ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-6 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Spirastrella coccinea ● Spongia sp. ●

Teichaxinella sp. ● Tethya sp. ● ●

Ulosa reutzleri ● Unidentified orange sponge ● Unidentified red sponge ● ● Unidentified sponge1 ● ● ● Unidentified tube-type ● Unidentified yellow sponge ● ● Verongula sp. ● Xestospongia muta ● Hydrozoans

Aglaophenia latecarinata ● Aglaophenia sp. ● Campanularia marginata ● Campanularia sp. ●

Eudendrium ramosum ●

Eudendrium sp. ● Feather hydroids ● Hydroida undet. sp. ● Lytocarpus philippinus ● Millepora alcocornis ● ● ● Millepora complanata ● Millepora sp. ● Obelina hyanlina ●

Pennaria sp. ●

Sertularia flowersi ●

Sertuarella sp. ● Sertularella speciosa ● Thryroscuphus ramosus ● Thyroscyphus marginatus ● Thyryoscyphus sp. ● Unident. branching hydroid ● Unidentified hydroid ● ● Unidentified star-shaped ● Yellow branch hydroid ● Platyhelminthes

Unid Turbellaria sp. ● Polycladia sp.??? ●

Nematoda

Unidentified sp. ● Sipuncula

Unidentified sp. ● Unidentified sp. 1 ● Unidentified sp. 2 ● Unidentified sp. 3 ● Bryozoans

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-7 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Aetea sica ● ●

Aetea truncate ● ●

Aeverrillia armata ● ● Aimulosia pusilla ●

Aimulosia uvulifera ● Alcyondium polypylum ● Alcyonidium capronae ●

Alderina smitti ●

Amathia alternata ● ●

Amathia distans ●

Amathia vidovici ● ● Anguinella palmata ● ● Antropora leucocypha ● ●

Bartensia minuata ●

Beania hirtissima ●

Beania intermedia ● Beania klugei ● ●

Beania mirabilis ● Bellulophora bellula ● Bowerbankia gracilis ● ●

Bowerbankia imbricata ●

Bowerbankia maxima ● ● Bryozoan sp. ● Bugula minima ● Bugula neritina ● ● Bugula stolonifera ● ● ● Bugula turrita ● Bugula uniserialis ● ● Caulibugula pearsei ● Celleporella carolinensis ● Celleporina hassalli ● Crisia elongata ● ● Cryptosula pallasiana ● ● Cupuladria doma ● Cymulopora uniserialis ● Discoporella umbellata depressa ● Discoporella umbellate ● Disporella plumose ● Drepanophora torquata ●

Electra bellula ● Escharina pesanseris ●

Exechonella antillea ● ● Floridina parvicella ● Floridinella typical ● ● Hippaliosina rostrigera ● Hippoporina verrilli ● Hippothoa balanophila ● Membranipora arborescens ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-8 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Membranipora savarii ● ● Membranipora triangularis ● Membranipora tuberculata ● Microporella umbracula ● Nolella stipata ● ●

Parasmitina nitida ● Parasmitina signata ● Pasythea tulipifera ● Phylactella ais ● Phylactellipora aviculifera ● Reginella repangulata ● Retevirgula caribbea ● Savignyella lafontii ● ● Schizoporella cornuta ● ● Schizoporella rugosa ● Schizoporella unicornis ● Scrupocellaria regularis ● Spathipora brevicauda ● Stylopoma spongites ● Sundanella sibogae ● Synnatum aegyptiacum ● ● Thalamoporella floridana ● ● Trematooecia psammophila ● Trypostega venusta ●

Tubulanus riceae ●

Valkeria atlantica ●

Vibracellina laxibasis ●

Vittaticella contei ● ●

Vittaticella uberrima ● Watersipora sp. ● ● Watersipora subovoidea ● ● ● Zoobotryon verticillatum ● ●

Barnacles

Tetraclita s. stalactifera ● ● ● ● ● ●

Balanus t. antillensis ● ● Megabalanus cocopoma ● ● ●

Balanus eburneus ● ● ● ● ● ● Balanus amphitrite ● ● ● ● ● ● Chthamalus fragilis ● ● ● ● ● ● Balanus improvisus ● ●

Chthamalus stellatus ● ●

Balanus venustus ●

Tunicates

Phallusia nigra ● ● ● Mogula sp. ● Botryllus planus ● ● ● ● Botrylloides nigrum ● ● ● ●

Didemnum candidum ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-9 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Didemnum sp. ● Eudistoma capsilatum ●

Eudistoma obscuratum

Diplosoma macdonaldi ● Diplosoma sp. ● Distaplia bermudensis ● Aplidium lobatum(?) ● Perophora viridis ●

Trididemnum orbiculatum ● Trididemnum savignii ●

Ecteinascidea turbinata ●

Didemnum antillensis ● ● ● ● ● ●

Echinoderms

Echinometra lucunter ● ● ● ● ● ● Arbacia punctulata ● ● ●

Eucidaris tribuloides ● ● ● ● ●

Diadema antillarum ● ● ● ● Lytechinus variagatus ● ● ● ● Tripneustes ventriculosus ● ● ● ● ● Holothuria grisea ● ● ● ● Davidaster rubiginosa ● Nemaster grandis ● Amphioholis squamata ● Ophiuroidea sp. ● Ophiothrix suensonii ● ●

Dendrochirotida sp. ●

Cucumariidae sp. ● Isostichopus badyonotus ● Isostichopus sp. ● Unidentified sp. ●

Nemerteans

Amphiporus ochraceous ● Amphiporus texanus ●

Baseodiscus delineatus ● ● ● Emplectonema osceolai ● Nemertopsis bivittata ● ● ●

Prosorhochmus americanus ● ●

Prosorhochmus belizeanus ● Tetrastemma enteroplecta ● ●

Tetrastemma merula ● ●

Tetrastemma worki ● ● Tubulanus pellucidus ● Zygonemertes cocacola ● Zygonemertes simonae ● Zygonemertes virescens ●

Crustaceans

Metapenaeopsis goodei ●

M. smithi ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-10 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Penaeus sp. ● Sicyonia dorsalis ● Neopontonides beaufortensis ●

Periclimenes americanus ● Alpheus armillatus ●

A. bouvieri ● ●

A. formosus ●

A. heterochaelis ●

A. malleator ●

A. normanni ● A. nuttingi ● A. paracrinitl/s ● A. peasei ●

A. thomasi ●

A. viridari ● Metalpheus rostratipes ● Synalpheus brevicarpus ●

S. cf. cl/racaoensis ●

S. fritzmuelleri ● ●

S. minl/s ●

S. townsendi ● Synalpheus sp. A ● Lysmata intermedia ●

L. wurdemanni ●

Processa fimbriata ● Microprosthema semilaeve ● Panulirus argus ● Upogebia aftinis ● Megalobrachium poeyi ●

M. soriatum ● Pachycheles monilifer ● ● ●

Petrolisthes armatus ● P. galathinus ● ●

Calcinus tibicen ●

Clibanarius antillensis ● C. sclopetarius ●

C. tricolor ●

C. vittatus ● Paguristes tortugae ● Petrochirus diogenes ● Pagurus carolinensis ● P. pollicaris ● Lepidopa benedicti ● Emerita talpoida ●

Uhlias limbatus ●

Arenaeus cribrarius ●

Callinectes ornatus ●

C. similis ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-11 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Cronius ruber ● Portunus gibbesii ● Platyactaea setigera ● Cataleptodius floridanus ● Eriphia gonagra ● Eurypanopeus abbreviatus ● ● E. depressus ●

E. dissimilis ● Hexapanopeus angustifrons ● H. paulensis Rathbun ● Menippe mercenaria ● ●

M. nodifrons ● ● ● Micropanope granulimanus ● Panopeus bermudensis ● ●

P. herbstii ●

P. occidentalis ● Pilumnus dasypodus ● ● P. lacteus Stimpson ● P. sayi Rathbun ●

Xantho denticulatus ● Pachygrapsus transverses ● ● ● Plagusia depressa ● ●

Gecarcinus lateralis ● Ocypode quadrata ● Acanthonyx petiverii ●

Chorinus heros ● Epialtus bituberculatus ●

E. dilatatus ● Macrocoeloma subparallelum ● Microphrys bicornutus ●

M. antillensis ●

Mithrax acuticornis ● M. coryphe ● M. forceps ● ● M. hispidus ● M. pleuracanthus ●

M. ruber ●

M. verrucosus ●

Pelia mutica ●

Pitho lherminieri ●

Podochela riisei ● P. sidneyi ● Stenorhynchus seticornis ● Gonodactylus bredini ●

G. oerstedii ● G. spinulosus ● Pagurus brevidactylus ● Paguristes hummi ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-12 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

Tanystylum orbiculare ●

Periclimenes americanus ●

Paradella dianae ● ● Sphaeroma walkeri ● ●

Paranthura infundibulata ● ● Jaeropsis sp. ● ●

Excorallana spp. ● ● Hyale perieri ● ● Elasmopus pectinicrus ● ● Ampithoe pollex ● ● Corophium acutum ● ●

Ericthonius sp. ● ●

Jassa cf. falcata ● ● Ampithoe longimana ● ● Stenothoe georgiana ● ●

Podocerus brasiliensis ● ● Cymadusa compta ● ● ● Percnon gibbesi ● Pagurus carolinensis ●

Mollusca

Aplysia dactylomela ● ●

Anachis avara ●

Anachis floridana ● ● ● Anachis lafresnayi ● ●

Arca zebra ●

Astrea tuber ● ● ● Atrina ridgida ●

Barleeia tincta ● ●

Cerithium litteratum ●

Chama macreroohvilla ● Chlamus senits) ●

Costoanachis sp

. ● Lima pellucid ● Loligo pealeii ? ● Cyprea sp. ● ● ● Erato maugeriae ● ●

Fissurella barbadensis ● ● Lamellaria perspicua ● ● Lucapinella limatula ● ● Mitrella argus ● ● Morula didyma ●

Nudibranchia sp. ● ● Octopus vulgaris ●

Petaloconchus sp

. ●

Petaloconchus varians ● ● ● Phidiana lynceus ● ●

Pisania tinctus ● ● Stramonita (Thais) haemostoma ● ●

### Table B.1. (Continued).

Appendices B-13 Taxon Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Broward

floridana

Thais rustica ● ● Tricolia affinis pterocladica ● ● Aplysia dactylomela ● ●

Littorina sp. ●

Iselica fenestrate ● ●

Barbatia dominensis ● ● Isognomon radiatus ● ●

Musculus lateralis ● ● Ostrea equestris ● ● ●

Ostrea sp. ● Sphenia antillensis ● ●

Anomia sp. ● ●

Pteria sp. ● ●

Pteria columbus ●

Hiatella solida ● Octopus briareus ● Octopus joubini ● Sepioteuthis sepioidea ● ●

Phoronida

Unidentified species ● ●

Studies reviewed to compile this species list were Nelson (1989), Coastal Science Associates, Inc. (2000), M. Rice, personal communication, Rudolph (1977), Gore et al. (1978), Nelson (1988), Nelson and Demetriades (1992), Watanabe (2002), Watanabe and Young (2006), McCarthy (20 01). Eckelbarger (1976), Reed et al. (1982), Reed (1982), Reed and Mikkelsen (1987), SFCREMP (2007), Prekel at al. (2008), Jaap (1984), Vare (1991), J. Beal, pers. comm., McCarthy, pers. obs., Coastal Planning & Engineeri ng, Inc. (2006), Brooke and Young (2005), Vargas-Angel et al. (2006), Brooke (2002), Cummings (1994), McCarthy (2006, 2008), Walton Smith et al. (1950), Multer and Milliman (1967), Van Montfrans (1981), Applied Biology, Inc. (1979), Petuch (1987), Coastal Science Associates, Inc. (2000), Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (1984), Continen tal Shelf Associates, Inc. (2002a,b, 2003, 2004, 2005b, 2006), Department of Environmental Resources Management (1993, 1994), Harris and Lee (2006), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003b), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) , Kirtley (1966), Moyer et al. (2003), and Winston (1982).Appendices B-14 

### Table B.2. Molluscan community composition and tota l number of individuals per species collected from 41 quantitative samples of Oculina varicosa coral on four reefs off the east Florida coast. Species characterizations (MOE, FOOD, ZOOG, Z) were taken from the literature (sources listed in footnotes) and do not reflect the resu lts of this study unles s otherwise noted. ZOOG and Z were assigned only to fully identified species. (

― = data unavailable or unknown; * or † preceding species name = abundant [>100 N], or common [10-100 N] species, respectively; * or - in station columns = presence or absence, respectively, in qualitative samples.) (From: Reed and Mikkelsen, 1987).

MOE* FOOD† ZOOG‡ Z§ 6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m Total

Class Gastropoda

Subclass Prosobranchia Order Archaeogastropoda

Scissurellidae Scissurella proxima (Dall, 1927) F D TC A/B/C 1 0 0 0 1

Fissurellidae

Diodora arcuata (Sowerby, 1862) F H T A 0 0 0 4 4
† D. cf. arcuata (Sowerby, 1862) F H --- --- 0 0 II 16 27 D. cayenensis (Lamarck, 1822) F H TN2 A 3 0 0 0 3

D. cf. cayenensis (Lamarck, 1822) F H --- --- 0 0 1 0 1 D. dysoni (Reeve, 1850) F H T B 1 0 0 0 1

D. cf. dysoni (Reeve, 1850) F H --- --- 3 0 0 0 3

D. cf. /isteri (Orbigny, 1842) F H --- --- 0 0 4 0 4

D. sp. F H --- --- 7 0 0 1 8 Lucapinella /imatula (Reeve, 1850) F H TC A/B 1 0 0 0 I

Puncturella sp. F H --- --- --- --- * --- * Diodorinae sp. I F H --- --- 0 1 1 5 7 Diodorinae sp. 2 F H --- --- 0 0 3 4 7 Diodorinae sp. 3 F H --- --- 0 0 0 5 5 Diodorinae sp. 4 F H --- --- 1 0 0 0 1 Diodorinae sp. 5 F H --- --- 0 0 1 3 4

Trochidae Calliostoma euglyptum (A. Adams, 1854) ║ F H/O TC A 0 0 8 0 8

C. jujubinum (Gmelin, 1791) ║ F D/O TC A/B --- --- * --- *

C. pulchrum (C.B. Adams, 1850) ║ F D/O TC A/B/C 0 0 1 4 5
†C. roseolum (Dall, 1880) ║ F D/O TC A/B/C 0 0 0 15 15 †C. sp. F --- --- --- 1 0 23 48 72 Clyclostrematidae
† Arene bairdii (Dall, 1889) F H TC B/C 0 0 0 37 37

A. sp. F H --- --- 0 0 0 2 2

Turbinidae

Turbo castanea (Gmelin, 1791) F H TC A 0 0 1 0 1

Phasianellidae

Tricolia affinis pterocladica (Robertson, 1958) F D/H T A 1 0 0 0 1

T. thalassicola (Robertson, 1958) F D/H TC A/B 0 0 5 0 5

T. sp. F D/H --- --- 1 0 3 0 4 Order Mesogastropoda

Truncatellidae

Truncatella cf. scalaris (Michaud, 1830) F ?D/H --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

Rissoidae

Alvania auberiana (Orbigny, 1842) F D/H TC A 0 0 4 3 7

Barleeia sp. F D/H --- --- 1 0 0 0 1 * Rissoina bouryi (Desjardin, 1949) F H T --- 102 0 0 0 102

Caecidae

† Caecurn pu/chellurn (Stimpson, 1851) F H TN4 A 11 0 0 0 11 C. sp. F H --- --- 3 0 0 0 3

Meioceras cubitatum (Folin, 1868) F H TC A/B 0 0 3 0 3

M. nitidurn (Stimpson, 1851) F H T A 2 0 0 0 2

Vitrinellidae Macrornphalina palmalitoris (Pilsbry and McGinty, 1950) F --- T B --- --- * --- *

*Parviturboides interruptus (C.B. Adams, 1850) F D/H TC A/B 1,103 0 0 1 1,104 Cerithiopsidae

Cerithiopsis bicolor (C.B. Adams, 1845) ?S---S ?P T --- 0 0 2 0 2

C. flavurn (C.B. Adams, 1850) ?S---S ?P T --- 0 0 0 7 7

C

. io (Dall and Bartsch, 1911) ?S---S ?P T --- 5 0 0 0 5

C . sp. 3 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 9 9

C. sp. 4 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 1 78 79

C. sp. 5 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 1 51 52

### Table B.2. (Continued).

Appendices B-15 MOE* FOOD† ZOOG‡ Z§ 6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m Total

C. sp. 6 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 2 4 6

C. sp. 7 ?S---S ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

C. sp. 8 ?S---S ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

C. sp. 9 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 2 0 2

C. Sp. 10 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 2 2

C. sp. ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

Seila adamsi (H.C. Lea, 1845) ?S---S ?P TN3 A/B 0 0 6 2 8
† S . sp. 1 ?S---S ?P --- --- 6 0 6 6 18

S . sp. 2 ?S---S ?P --- --- 6 0 2 1 9

Turritellidae
† Vermicularia spirata (Philippi, 1836) E F TN3 A 0 0 18 71 89

Turritellidae sp. E F --- --- 0 0 1 0 1

Vermetidae

Serpulorbis decussatus (Gmelin, 1791) .E F TC A 0 0 5 1 6 Vermetidae sp. E F --- --- 0 0 2 0 2

Architectonicidae Architectonica peracuta (Dall, 1889) S---A C TC B 0 0 0 3 3
† Heliacus bisu/catus (Orbigny, 1842) S---A P/?O TC A/B/C 0 0 0 10 10

Mathildidae

Mathilda barbadensis ( Dall, 1889) F ?C T B 0 0 0 1 1 Triphoridae *Metaxia rugulosa (C.B. Adams, 1850) S---S P T A/B 1 0 0 277 278

M. taeniolata (Dall, 1889) ?S---S ?P M A/B --- --- * * * Triphora cf. lilacina (Dall, 1889) ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

T. cf. nigrocincta (C.B. Adams, 1839) ?S---S ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

T. sp. I ?S---S ?P --- --- 1 0 7 0 8
† T. sp. 2 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 5 61 66

T

: sp. 3 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 1 1 2

T. sp. 4 ?S---S ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

T. sp. 5 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 1 8 9

T. sp. 6 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 3 3

T. sp. 7 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 2 2

T. sp. 8 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

T. sp. 9 ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 0 2 2 †T. sp. ?S---S ?P --- --- 0 0 1 0 10 Pyramidellidae
† Fargoa bushiana (Bartsch, 1909) ?S---M, P ?P M3 A 15 0 8 36 59

F. dianthophila (Wells and Wells, 1961) S---P P M3 A 2 0 5 1 8
† Odostomia# somersi (Verrill and Bush, 1900) ?S---M, P ?P T --- 0 0 0 18 18

O . sp. 2 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 2 0 1 1 4

O . sp. 3 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 2 0 1 2 5
† O . sp. 4 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 4 10 14
† O . sp. 5 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 1 67 68
† O . sp. 6 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 22 0 0 0 22
† O . sp. 7 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 18 0 0 0 18

O . sp. 8 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 4 0 0 0 4

O . sp. 9 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 2 0 0 0 2

O . sp. 10 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 1 5 6

O . sp. 11 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 1 0 0 1 2

O

. (lvara) sp. ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

Peristichia sp. ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

P yramidella sp. ?S---M, P ?P --- --- --- --- * --- *

Turbonilla cf. pilsbryi (Bush, 1899) ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 0 1 1
† T. sp. 1 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 9 14 23
† T. sp. 2 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 0 15 15

T. sp. 3 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 2 0 1 1 4

T. sp. 4 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

T. sp. 5 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 0 0 0 3 3

T. sp. 6 ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 3 0 1 0 4

T. sp. ?S---M, P ?P --- --- 1 0 0 2 3 Epitoniidae

Epitonium sp. ?S---A ?P --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

Eulimidae

Melanella cf. arcuata (C.B. Adams, 1850) S---E P --- --- 1 0 0 5 6
† M.sp.1 S---E P --- --- 6 0 0 19 25

M. sp. S---E P --- --- 3 0 0 0 3

### Table B.2. (Continued).

Appendices B-16 MOE* FOOD† ZOOG‡ Z§ 6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m Total

Calyptraeidae
† Crepidula aculeata (Gmelin, 1791) E F TC A/B 12 0 3 0 15

C. fornicata (Linne, 1758) E F TN6 A 0 0 2 0 2
†C. cf. fornicata (Linne, 1758) E F --- --- 2 0 9 1 12

C. plana (Say, 1822) E F TN6 A 0 1 0 0 1 C. sp. E F --- --- 0 1 0 1 2 Capulidae

Capulus cf. incurvatus (Gmelin, 1791) S---M F --- --- 0 0 0 1 1 Cypraeidae

Cypraea sp. F C/H --- --- --- --- * --- *

Triviidae

Erato maugeriae (Gray, 1832) S---T C TC A/B --- --- * --- *

Trivia maltbiana (Schwengel and McGinty, 1942) S---T C TC A/B 0 0 3 0 3

Velutinidae

Lamellaria leucosphaera (Schwengel, 1942) F C T A 1 0 0 0 1 L. perspicua (Linne, 1758) F C T A/B --- --- * --- *

L. sp. F C --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

Marsenina sp. F C --- --- 0 0 1 0 1

?M. sp. F C --- --- 0 0 0 2 2

Naticidae

† Haliotinella patinaria (Guppy, 1876) F C T A 0 0 0 12 12 Cymatiidae

Cymatium sp. F C --- --- --- --- * --- * Order Neogastropoda

Muricidae

Aspella senex (Dall, 1903) F C TC --- --- --- * --- *

Favartia cellulosa (Conrad, 1846) F C TC A --- --- * --- *

Murexiella levicula (Dall, 1889) F C TC A 0 0 0 3 3 M. macgintyi (M. Smith, 1938) F C T A/B 0 0 1 0 1

Thais haemastoma floridana (Conrad, 1837) F C TC A --- --- * * Trachypollia didyma (Schwengel, 1943) F C TC A/B 0 0 0 1 1

T. sp. F C --- --- 0 0 0 1 1 Coralliophilidae

Coralliophila cf. aberrans (C.B. Adams, 1850) ║ S---C O --- --- --- --- * --- * C. sp. 1 S---C O --- --- 0 4 3 0 7 C. sp. 2 ║ S---C O --- --- 0 0 0 9 9 C. Sp. S---C 0 --- --- 0 0 1 0 1
† Latiaxis mansfieldi (McGinty, 1940) S---C 0 T B 0 0 2 15 17

Buccinidae

Antillophos adelus (Schwengel, 1942) F C/S T --- 0 0 0 7 7

Colubraria lanceolata (Menke, 1828) F C/S TC A 0 0 0 1 1

C. swifti (Tryon, 1881) F C/S T A --- --- * --- * Engina corinnae ( Crovo, 1971) F C/S T A 0 0 4 1 5

E. turbinella (Kiener, 1835) F C/S T A 1 0 0 0 1
† Pisania tincta (Conrad, 1846) F C/S TC A 8 4 3 7 22

Columbellidae
† Astyris lunata (Say, 1826) F C TN3 A 3 0 10 1 14

Costoanachis floridana (Rehder, 1939) F C TC A 4 0 0 0 4

C. ?hotesseriana (Orbigny, 1842) F C --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

*C. lafresnayi (Fischer and Bernardi, 1856) F C TN5 B 0 0 34 585 619

*C. sparsa (Reeve, 1859) F C T A/B 14 2 87 55 158

Costoanachis sp. F C --- --- 0 0 4 0 4
† Nassarina glypta (Bush, 1885) F C TC A/B 0 2 9 36 47

Steironepion minor (C. B. Adams, 1845) F C TC A/B/C --- --- * --- *

S. monilifera (Sowerby, 1844) F C T A/B 1 0 0 0 1 Suturoglypta iontha (Ravenel, 1861) F C TC A/B 0 0 3 0 3

Nassariidae

Nassarius consensus (Ravenel, 1861) F C/S TC A 0 0 2 1 3

N. cf. consensus (Ravenel, 1861) F C/S --- --- 0 0 0 7 7

N. sp. F C/S --- --- 0 0 2 0 2

Fasciolariidae

Fasciolaria tulipa (Linne, 1758) F C TC A --- --- * --- *

Latirus cariniferus (Lamarck, 1822) F C T A --- --- * --- *

cf. Pleuroploca gigantea (Kiener, 1840) F C TC A --- --- * --- * Marginellidae

Marginella lavalleeana (Orbigny, 1842) F ?C/S TC A/B 2 0 0 0 2

Volvarina avena (Kiener, 1834) F C/S TC A --- --- --- * * Marginellidae sp. F ?C/S --- --- 0 1 0 0 1

### Table B.2. (Continued).

Appendices B-17 MOE* FOOD† ZOOG‡ Z§ 6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m Total

Costellariidae

Pusia sykesi (Melvill, 1925) F C T A/B * *

Turridae

Cryoturris fargoi (McGinty, 1955) F C TC A/B --- --- --- * * Daphnella morra (Dall, 1881) F C TC A/B/C 0 0 0 1 1 Glyphoturris rugirima (Dall, 1889) F C TC A/B/C 0 0 0 3 3 lthycythara auberiana (Orbigny, 1842) F C T --- 0 0 2 0 2

Nannodiella melanitica (Bush, 1885) F C TC A/B --- --- * --- * Pilsbryspira albomaculala (Orbigny, 1842) F C T A --- --- * --- * P. jayana (C.B. Adams, 1850) F C --- --- --- --- * --- *

P. monilis (Bartsch and Rehder, 1939) F C T A 2 0 0 0 2 Splendrillia sp. F C --- --- --- --- * --- * Subclass Opisthobranchia

Opisthobranchia sp. I F --- --- --- 0 0 1 0 1 Opisthobranchia sp. 2 F --- --- --- 0 0 0 1 1 Opisthobranchia sp. 3 F --- --- --- 0 0 1 0 1 Order Cephalaspidea Atyidae

Atys caribaea (Orbigny, 1841) F ?C TC A/B 0 0 0 1 1

Haminoea sp. F C --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

Retusidae

Pyrunculus caelatus (Bush, 1885) F ?C TC A/B 0 0 1 0 1 Order Ascoglossa Ascoglossa sp. F H --- --- 1 0 0 0 1 Order Notaspidea

Pleurobranchidae

Pleurobrachidae sp. F C --- --- 3 0 0 0 3

Order Thecosomata

Cavoliniidae

Creseis acicula (Rang, 1828) F F TN P 0 0 0 1 1

Order Nudibranchia

Goniodorididae

?Okenia sp. F C * * Polyceratidae

?Polycera Sp. F C --- --- 0 0 0 6 6

Dotoidae

Doto sp. ?S---H ?P --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

Aeolidiidae Spurilla neapolitana ?var. braziliana (MacFarland, 1909) F C T --- 0 0 0 1 1

Gastropoda sp. 1 F --- --- --- 0 0 0 1 1 Gastropoda sp. 3 F --- --- --- 0 0 1 1 2 Gastropoda sp. F --- --- --- 0 2 1 1 4 Class Scaphopoda

Order Dentaliida

Dentaliidae

Dentalium sp. F F --- --- --- --- * --- *

Order Gadilida Siphonodentaliidae

Cadulus sp. F F --- --- 0 0 0 2 2 Class Polyplacophora

Order Ischnochitonida

Ischnochitonidae

Ischnochiton sp. F H --- --- 1 0 0 0 1 Callistoplacidae

Callistochiton sp. F H --- --- 0 0 0 1 1 Chaetopleuridae

Chaetopleura apiculala (Say, 1830) F H TN3 A 0 0 0 6 6

C. cf. apiculata (Say, 1830) F H --- --- 0 0 0 7 7

Order Acanthochitonida

Acanthochitonidae

Acanthochitona sp. F H --- --- 1 0 0 1 2

Class Bivalvia

Order Nuculoida

Nuculidae

Nucula ?aegensis (Jeffreys, 1879) F D --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

N. crenulata (A. Adams, 1856) F D TC A 0 0 0 4 4

### Table B.2. (Continued).

Appendices B-18 MOE* FOOD† ZOOG‡ Z§ 6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m Total

Nuculanidae

Portlandia minuscula (Verrill and Bush, 1897) F D M3 C 0 0 0 3 3

Order Arcoida

Arcidae

Anadara floridana (Conrad, 1869) E F TC A 0 0 0 1 1
† Arca imbricata Bruguiere, 1789 E F TC A 35 2 1 0 38

A. zebra (Swainson, 1833) E F TC A 0 1 0 1 2 Arcopsis adamsi (Dall, 1886) E F TC A 0 0 0 7 7

Barbatia cancellaria (Lamarck, 1819) E F TC A 0 1 0 0 1

*B. candida (Helbling, 1779) E F TC A 1 1 8 157 167
† B. domingensis (Lamarck, 1819) E F TC A 16 0 0 0 16 Order Mytiloida Mytilidae
† Gregariella coralliophaga (Gmelin, 1791) N F TC A 6 4 8 81 99

Lioberus castaneus (Say, 1822) E F T A --- --- * --- *
† Lithophaga aristata (Dillwyn, 1817) N F TC A/B/C 3 7 18 0 28

*L. bisulcata (Orbigny, 1842) N F TC A/B 150 6 94 17 267

Modiolus cf. modiolus squamosus (Beauperthuy, 1967) E F --- --- --- --- * --- *

† Musculus lateralis (Say, 1822) E F TC A 8 2 3 1 14

Mytilidae sp. E F --- --- 0 0 0 2 2

Order Pterioida

Pteriidae

Pteria colymbus (Roding, 1798) E F TC A 1 0 0 3 4 Isognomonidae

lsognomon bicolor (C.B. Adams, 1845) E F T A 1 0 0 0 1

Order Limoida

Limidae

Lima lima (Linne, 1758) E F TC A/B 1 0 0 0 1

Order Ostreoida

Ostreidae

Ostrea permollis ( Sowerby, 1841) E F TC A 0 0 0 2 2
† Ostreola equestris (Say, 1834) E F TN1 A 18 0 0 6 24 †Ostreidae sp. E F --- --- 0 0 0 13 13 Gryphaeidae

*Neopycnodonte cochlear (Poli, 1795) E F TC A/B/C 2 0 3 161 166

Plicatulidae

† Plicatula gibbosa (Lamarck, 1801) E F TC A 0 0 0 18 18

Pectinidae

*Chlamys benedicti (Verrill and Bush, 1897) E F TC A 0 0 26 93 119 Lyropecten nodosus (Linne, 1758) E F TC A --- --- * * Pectinidae sp. E F --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

Anomiidae

Anomia simplex (Orbigny, 1842) E F TN3 A 1 0 0 1 2

Pododesmus rudis (Broderip, 1834) E F TC A 2 0 1 4 7 Order Hippuritoida

Chamidae
† Chama congregata (Conrad, 1833) E F TC A 1 4 10 2 17

C. florida (Lamarck, 1819) E F T A/B 0 1 0 1 2

C. lactuca (Dall, 1886) E F TC A 0 0 3 5 8

C. macerophylla (Gmelin, 1791) E F TC A 0 1 0 1 2

C. sarda (Reeve, 1847) E F T B 0 1 0 0 1 C. sp. E F --- --- 0 0 0 1 1

Pseudochama radians (Lamarck, 1819) E F TC A/B 2 0 0 0 2

Order Veneroida

Lucinidae
† Parvilucillu mulLilineata (Tuomey and Holmes, 1857) F F TC A/B 0 0 0 14 14

Thyasiridae

Thyasira flexuosa (Montagu, 1803) F F B7 A/B 0 0 0 1 1 Ungulinidae

Diplodonta punctata (Say, 1822) F F TC A/B/C --- --- --- * * Diplodonta sp. F F --- --- 2 0 0 2 4 Leptonidae

Montacuta sp. S---E F --- --- 0 0 0 1 1
Leptonidae sp. ?S---E F --- --- 1 0 1 2 4

### Table B.2. (Continued).

Appendices B-19 MOE* FOOD† ZOOG‡ Z§ 6 m 27 m 42 m 80 m Total

Lasaeidae

Aligena cf. texasiana (Harry, 1969) ?S---E, P F --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

A. sp. ?S---E, P F --- --- 1 0 0 0 1 Erycina sp. ?S---? F --- --- 0 0 0 6 6

Kellia suborbicularis (Montagu, 1803) F F B A 0 0 2 3 5

K. ?suborbicularis (Montagu, 1803) F? F --- --- 2 0 0 0 2
† K. sp. ?S---? F --- --- 5 0 2 4 11

Lasaeidae sp. ?S---? F --- --- 1 0 0 6 7 Condylocardiidae

Carditopsis smithii (Dall, 1896) F F T A 2 0 0 0 2

Crassatellidac

Crassinella lunulata (Conrad, 1834) F F TN3 A/B 0 0 3 1 4

Cardiidae

Cerastoderma cf. pinnatulatum (Conrad, 1831) F F --- --- 1 0 0 0 1

Tellinidae

Tellina cf. squamifera (Deshayes, 1855) F D --- --- 1 0 0 0 1
† T. cf. sybaritica (Dall, 1881) F D --- --- 2 0 5 6 13

T. sp. F D --- --- 1 0 1 0 2 Vesicomyidae

Calyptogena sp. F F --- C? 1 0 0 0 1

Veneridae

*Chione grus (Holmes, 1858) F F TC A 110 8 30 1 149 Cyclinella tenuis (Recluz, 1852) F F TN1 A/B 7 0 0 0 7 Veneridae sp. F F --- --- 0 0 3 2 5

Petricolidae

Rupellaria typica (Jonas, 1844) N F TC A 2 0 0 0 2 Order Myoida Myidae

Sphenia antillensis (Dall and Simpson, 1901) E F T A 9 0 0 0 9

Gastrochaenidae

† Gastrochaena hians (Gmelin, 1791) N F TC --- 1 0 4 41 46
† Rocellaria ovata (Sowerby, 1834) N F TC --- 3 0 6 12 21

Hiatellidae

Hiatella arctica (Linne, 1767) E F B A/B/C 0 0 2 7 9

Pholadidae *Dip/othyra smithii ( Tryon, 1862) N F TN3 A 207 0 0 0 207

Subclass Anomalodesmata Order Pholadomyoida Lyonsiidae

Lyonsia beana (Orbigny, 1842) E F TC A 3 0 4 0 7 Bivalvia sp. 2 --- 1 0 0 0 1 Bivalvia sp. 4 --- 1 1 0 4 6 Bivalvia sp. 7 --- 0 0 0 1 1 Bivalvia sp. 8 --- 0 0 0 1 1 Bivalvia sp. --- 3 2 1 3 9 Class Cephalopoda

Subclass Coleoidea

Order Teuthoidea Ommastrephidae lllex oxygoneus ( Roper, Li and Mangold, 1969) F C TN3 B/C --- --- --- * * Order Octopoda Octopodidae Octopus sp. F C --- --- 0 1 0 0 1

* Mode of existence (MOE): E = epilithic; F = free-living; N - endolithic; S = symbiotic (-A = with anthozoan; -C = with sclera ctinian coral; E =

with echinoderm: -H = with hydroid; -M = with mollusk; -P = with polychaete; -S = with sponge; -T = with tunicate [ascidian]). † Feeding type (FOOD): C = carnivore; D = detritivore/deposit-feeder; F = filter-feeder/suspension-feeder/mucoid entrapper; H = herbivore;

0 = corallivore; P = parasite; S = scavenger. ‡ Zoogeographical distribulion (ZOOG): B = Areticlboreal; M - temperate; T = tropicaVstenothermic; TC = IropicaVto Cape Hattera s; TN =

tropical/to nonh of Cape Hatteras [I = to Virginia; 2 - to Maryland; 3 = to Massachusetts; 4 = 10 New Hampshire; 5 = to Maine; 6 = to Canada; 7 = to Greenland]. § Depth (Z): A = shallow (0-50 m); B = shelf (50-200 m); C - deep (>200 m); P - pelagic. ║ FOOD catcagorization of these species reflects the results of gut analyses in the present study.

# Odostomia is placed in quotes according to Robertson's (1978) findings that odostomoid species require biological data (e.g., on

spermatophores, reproductive anatomy insufficient here for proper generic placement).Appendices B-20 

### Table B.3. Decapod crustacean community composit ion and total number of individuals per species on

east Florida Oculina coral reefs (From: Reed et al., 1982).

6 m

Fort Pierce Inlet 27 m

North of

Fort Pierce 42 m

South of

Fort Pierce

St. Lucie Inlet 80 m

Offshore East of

Fort Pierce

Families 11 9 10 10

Genera 21 13 13 20

Species 30 14 16 24

Endemic Species 16 1 3 9

Mean Species 7.9 6.8 5.9 10.9

Mean Individuals 39.8 18.5 47 87.6

Mean Coral Size (g) 521. 8 131.4 1,193.50 1,613.60

Percent Dead Coral 23.3 18.3 21.9 69.9

Number Samples 15 4 13 10

Dominance (D 1 ) 40 32 72 18

Dominance (D 2 ) 55 45 79 34

Species

1. Pagurus carolinensis 6 24 439 160

2. Megalobrachium soriatum 238 9 41 22

3. Pagurus piercei 0 0 37 142

4. Synalpheus townsendi 1 8 31 112

5. Galathea rastrata 0 1 5 142

6. Micropanope scuptipes 1 1 0 137

7. Pachycheles monilifer 89 0 0 2

8. Mithrax forceps 81 8 0 0

9. Thor manningi 49 3 0 29

10. Pseudomedaeus distinctus 0 0 11 33

11. Synalpheus fritzmuelleri 30 0 0 0

12. Pseudomedaeus agassizii 0 0 10 19

13. Nematopaguroides pusillus 0 0 0 29

14. Periclimenes iridescens 2 1 25 0

15. Synalpheus minus 19 0 0 0

16. Micropanope barbadensis 0 0 0 17

17. Synalpheus cf. townsendi 15 0 1 0

18. Pelia mutica 4 9 1 1

19. Euchirograpsus americanus 1 0 0 10

20. Stenorhynchus seticornis 0 3 3 5

21. Pilumnus dasypodus 10 0 0 0

22. Petrolisthes galathinus 9 0 0 0

23. Periclimenes rathbunae 8 0 0 0

24. Troglocarcinus corallicola 6 0 1 0

25. Periclimenaeus atlanticus 6 0 0 0

26. Domecia acanthophora 5 0 0 0

27. Micropanope nuttingi 0 3 0 2

28. Mithrax acuticornis 0 0 1 3

29. Paguristes tortugae 2 2 0 0

30. Nanoplax xanthiformis 0 0 0 4

31. Lobopilumnus agassizii 2 1 0 0

### Table B.3. (Continued).

Appendices B-21 6 m

Fort Pierce Inlet 27 m

North of

Fort Pierce 42 m

South of

Fort Pierce

St. Lucie Inlet 80 m

Offshore East of

Fort Pierce

32. Synalpheus cf. fritzmuelleri 3 0 0 0

33. Alpheus cristulifrons 2 0 0 0

34. Gonodactylus bredini 2 0 0 0

35. Scyllarus depressus 0 0 2 0

36. Pinnixa retinens 0 0 2 0

37. Parapinnixa hendersoni 0 0 0 2

38. Porcellana sigsbeiana 1 0 0 0

39. Periclimenes americanus 1 0 0 0

40. Epialtus sp. 1 0 0 0

41. Alpheus formosus 1 0 0 0

42. Eucratopsis crassimanus 1 0 0 0

43. Thor dobkini 1 0 0 0

44. Paractaea rufopunctata nodosa 0 1 0 0

45. Stenocionops furcata 0 0 1 0

46. Periclimenes longicaudatus 0 0 0 1

47. Solenopagurus lineatus 0 0 0 1

48. Automate evermanni 0 0 0 1

49. Aplheus cf. amblyonyx 0 0 0 1

50. Pinnotheres sp. 0 0 0 1Appendices C-1 

# A p p e n d i x CAppendices C-2Table C.1. Fish species recorded from natural nearshorehardbottom habitats in southeast and east central Florida.68 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllGINGLYMOSTOMATIDAEGinglymostomacirratum1●●●●Carcharhinusbrevipinna3●●●●Carcharhinus leucas1●●●●Carcharhinus limbatus1●●●●CARCHARHINIDAECarcharhinus plumbeus1●●●●SPHYRNIDAESphyrna mokarran6●●●●RHINOBATIDAERhinobatos lentiginosus5●●●●DASYATIDAEDasyatis americana4●●●●MYLIOBATIDAEAetobatus narinari4●●●●UROLOPHIDAEUrobatis jamaicensis4●●●●MOBULIDAEManta birostris4●●●ELOPIDAEMegalops atlanticus3●●●●Echidna catenata3●●●●●Enchelycore carychroa2●●●Gymnothorax funebris1●●●●●Gymnothorax moringa1●●●●●Gymnothorax vicinus4●●●●●MURAENIDAEMuraena miliaris3●●●●●Ahlia egmontis2●●●●●Myrichthys breviceps4●●●●OPHICHTHIDAEMyrichthys ocellatus5●●●●Harengula clupeola1●●●●Harengula humeralis1●●●●Harengula jaguana1●●●●Opisthonema oglinum1●●●●CLUPEIDAESardinella aurita1●●●●Anchoa cubana1●●●●Anchoa hepsetus1●●●●ENGRAULIDAEAnchoa lyolepis1●●●●Synodus foetens4●●●●●SYNODONTIDAESynodus intermedius4●●●●GOBIESOCIDAEGobiesox strumosus1?●●●Membras martinica1●●●●ATHERINIDAEMenidia peninsulae1●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-368 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllBELONIDAETylosurus crocodilus5●●●●●●Hemiramphusbrasiliensis3●●●●HEMIRAMPHIDAEHyporhamphusunifasciatus1●●●●Holocentrusadscensionis4●●●●●●Holocentrus rufus3●●●●HOLOCENTRIDAEMyripristis jacobus4●●●●●●AULOSTOMIDAEAulostomus maculatus1●●●●●●FISTULARIIDAEFistularia tabacaria4●●●●Cosmocampusalbirostris4●●●●Cosmocampus elucens4●●●●SYNGNATHIDAEScorpaena grandicornis5●●●●●●SCORPAENIDAEScorpaena plumieri1●●●●●●TRIGLIDAEPrionotus scitulus4●●●●DACTYLOPTERIDAEDactylopterus volitans4●●●●CENTROPOMIDAECentropomusundecimalis3●●●●●Centropristis striata1●●●●●●Cephalopholis fulva5●●●●●●Cephalopholiscruentata4●●●●●●Diplectrum formosum4●●●●●●Epinephelusadscensionis4●●●●●●Epinephelus itajara1●●●●●●Epinephelus morio1●●●●●●Hypoplectrus puella4●●●●Hypoplectrus unicolor4●●●●Mycteroperca bonaci3●●●●Mycteropercamicrolepis1●●●●Mycteroperca phenax4●●●●Rypticus maculatus1●Rypticus saponaceus4●Rypticus subbifrenatus6●Serranus baldwini4●●●●●Serranus subligarius1●●●●●SERRANIDAESerranus tigrinus4●●●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-468 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllApogon binotatus1●●●●●Apogon maculatus1●●●●●Apogonpseudomaculatus1●●●●●Apogon townsendi4●●●●●Astrapogonpuncticulatus4●●●●●Astrapogon stellatus2●●●●●APOGONIDAEPhaeoptyx conklini2●●●●●Caranx bartholomaei1●●●●●●●●Caranx crysos1●●●●●●●Caranx hippos1●●●●●●●Caranx latus1●●●●●●●Caranx ruber1●●●●●●●Chloroscombruschrysurus1●●●●●Decapterus punctatus3●●●●●●●Elagatis bipinnulata4●●●●Oligoplites saurus1●●●●●Selarcrumenophthalmus3●●●●●●●Selene setapinnis1●●●●●●Selene vomer1●●●●●●Seriola dumerili4●●●●●Seriola rivoliana5●●●●●Trachinotus carolinus3●●●●●●Trachinotus falcatus3●●●●●CARANGIDAETrachinotus goodei6●●●●Lutjanus apodus1●●●●●●Lutjanus analis1●●●●●●●Lutjanus griseus1●●●●●●●Lutjanus jocu1●●●●●Lutjanus mahogoni1●●●●●●Lutjanus synagris1●●●●●●Ocyurus chrysurus1●●●●●LUTJANIDAERhomboplitesaurorubens6●●●●●LOBOTIDAELobotes surinamensis5●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-568 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllEucinostomusargenteus1●●●●●Eucinostomus gula1●●●●●Eucinostomus jonesii4●●●●●Eucinostomus lefroyi4●●●●Eucinostomusmelanopterus6●●●●●GERREIDAEGerres cinereus1●●●●●●Anisotremussurinamensis1●●●●●●Anisotremus virginicus1●●●●●●Haemulon album4●●●●●●Haemulon aurolineatum1●●●●●●Haemulon carbonarium1●●●●●●Haemulonchrysargyreum1●●●●●●●Haemulonflavolineatum1●●●●●●Haemulonmacrostomum3●●●●●●Haemulon melanurum1●●●●●●Haemulon parra1●●●●●●Haemulon plumierii1●●●●●●Haemulon sciurus3●●●●●●Haemulon striatum4●●●●●HAEMULIDAEOrthopristis chrysoptera5●●●●●●Archosargusprobatocephalus1●●●●Archosargusrhomboidalis4●●●●●Calamus bajonado1●●●●●Calamus calamus4●●●●●●●Calamus penna4●●●●●●●Diplodus argenteus1●●●●●●●●●●Diplodus holbrooki1●●●●●●●●●●SPARIDAELagodon rhomboides5●●●●POLYNEMIDAEPolydactylus virginicus6●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-668 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllBairdiella sanctaeluciae1●●●●●●●Cynoscion nebulosus6●●●●●Equetus acuminatus1●●●●Equetus umbrosus1●●●●Sciaenops ocellatus6●●●●●●Odontoscion dentex1●●●●SCIAENIDAEUmbrina coroides3●●●Mulloidichthysmartinicus3●●●●●MULLIDAEPseudupeneusmaculatus1●●●●●PEMPHERIDAEPempherisschomburgkii1●●●●●KYPHOSIDAEKyphosussectatrix/incisor1●●●●●●EPHIPPIDAEChaetodipterus faber1●●●●●●Chaetodon capistratus5●●●●●Chaetodon ocellatus3●●●●Chaetodon sedentarius4●●●●●CHAETODONTIDAEChaetodon striatus5●●●●Holacanthusbermudensis3●●●●●●●●Holacanthus ciliaris1●●●●●●●●Pomacanthus arcuatus1●●●●●●●●POMACANTHIDAEPomacanthus paru2●●●●●●●●Abudefduf saxatilis1●●●●●●●Abudefduf taurus1●●●●●●●Microspathodonchrysurus4●●●●●Stegastes adustus5●●●●●●Stegastes diencaeus4●●●●●●Stegastes leucostictus1●●●●●●Stegastes partitus2●●●●●●●Stegastes planifrons4●●●●POMACENTRIDAEStegastes variabilis1●●●●●Opistognathus aurifrons5●●●●Opistognathusmacrognathus1●●●●OPISTOGNATHIDAEOpistognathuswhitehursti4●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-768 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllMugil cephalus3●●●●MUGILIDAEMugil curema3●●●●Bodianus rufus3●●●●●●Doratonotus megalepis1●●●●●Halichoeres bivittatus1●●●●●●Halichoerescyanocephalus4●●●●●Halichoeres garnoti4●●●●●Halichoeresmaculipinna1●●●●●●Halichoeres poeyi1●●●●●●Halichoeres radiatus1●●●●●●Lachnolaimus maximus3●●●●Thalassomabifasciatum1●●●●●●Xyrichtys martinicensis4●●●●●●LABRIDAEXyrichtys splendens4●●●●●●Cryptotomus roseus4●Scarus coelestinus1●●●●●●●Scarus coeruleus4●●●●●●●Scarus guacamaia1●●●●●●●Scarus iseri5●●●●●●Scarus taeniopterus4●●●●●●Scarus vetula3●●●●●●●Sparisoma atomarium1●●●●●Sparisomaaurofrenatum3●●●●●●Sparisomachrysopterum3●●●●●●Sparisoma radians4●●●●●Sparisoma rubripinne1●●●●●●●SCARIDAESparisoma viride3●●●●●●●URANOSCOPIDAEAstroscopus y-graecum1●●●●TRIPTERYGIIDAEEnneanectes pectoralis5●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-868 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllLabrisomus bucciferus3●●●●●Labrisomus gobio1●●●●●Labrisomus kalisherae4●●●●●Labrisomus nuchipinnis1●●●●●●Malacoctenusaurolineatus5●●●●●Malacoctenusmacropus1●●●●●Malacoctenustriangulatus1●●●Paraclinus fasciatus4●Paraclinus marmoratus4●Paraclinus nigripinnis1●LABRISOMIDAEStarksia ocellata1●Acanthemblemariaaspera4●●●●●Acanthemblemariaspinosa4●●●●●CHAENOPSIDAEEmblemaria pandionis4●●●●●Dactyloscopuscrossotus1●DACTYLOSCOPIDAEPlatygillellusrubrocinctus2●Entomacrodusnigricans1●Hypleurochilusbermudensis4●●●●●Ophioblenniusmacclurei4●Parablenniusmarmoreus2●●●●●BLENNIIDAEScartella cristata1●●●●●CALLIONYMIDAEParadiplogrammusbairdi5●●●●●ELEOTRIDAEErotelis smaragdus3●Coryphopterus dicrus4●●●●●Coryphopterus eidolon5●●●●●Coryphopterusglaucofraenum3●●●●●Coryphopteruspersonatus4●●●●●Ctenogobiussaepepallens4●●●●Elacatinus macrodon5●●●●GOBIIDAEElacatinus oceanops5●●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-968 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllGnatholepis thompsoni4●●●●●Gobiosoma grosvenori4●Microgobius carri4●●●●Nes longus3●●●●GOBIIDAE(continued)Priolepis hipoliti4●Ptereleotris calliurus4●PTERELEOTRIDAEPtereleotris helenae4●Acanthurus bahianus1●●●●●●●●Acanthurus chirurgus1●●●●●●●●ACANTHURIDAEAcanthurus coeruleus1●●●●●●●●Sphyraena barracuda1●●●●●●●●●Sphyraena guachancho1●●●●●●SPHYRAENIDAESphyraena picudilla5●●●●●●Pomatomus saltatrix1●●●●POMATOMIDAEScomberomorusmaculatus5●●●●SCOMBRIDAEScomberomorus regalis3●●●●●BOTHIDAEBothus lunatus5●●●●●●Balistes capriscus4●●●●●●●Balistes vetula4●●●●●BALISTIDAECanthidermis sufflamen5●●●●●●●Aluterus schoepfii4●●●●●●●Aluterus scriptus3●●●●●●●Cantherhinesmacrocerus5●●●●Cantherhines pullus3●●●●Monacanthus tuckeri5●●●●●●FILEFISHESStephanolepis hispidus1●●●●Acanthostracionpolygonia4●●●●Acanthostracionquadricornis3●●●●Lactophrys bicaudalis4●●●●Lactophrys trigonus4●●●●OSTRACIIDAELactophrys triqueter1●●●●Canthigaster rostrata3●●●●●Sphoeroides spengleri2●●●●TETRAODONTIDAESphoeroidestestudineus5●●●●●Table C.1. (Continued).

Appendices C-1068 Families; 257 spp.Trophic Category**ResidencySize ClassesLife StagesFamilySpeciesOrig.Cite*HPlDIPResTranOnto<22 to1010 to2525 to5050 to100>100NSJANS & JJ & AAllChilomycterus schoepfii4●●●●Diodon holocanthus4●●●●●DIODONTIDAEDiodon hystrix3●●●●●Totals31 36 2 123 74 136 57 104 130 166 100 41 18 14 0 5 # 24 72 114* Original Citation: 1 = Gilmore, 1977; Gilmore et al., 1981.2 = Futch and Dwinell, 1977. 3 = Lindeman, 1997a; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999. 4 = Baron et al., 2004. 5= Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006.6 = Present study.** H = Herbivore; Pl = Planktivore; D = Detritivore; I = Invertivore; P = Piscivore.Appendices D-1 

# A p p e n d i x DAppendices D-2Table D.1. Examples of controlled experiments and field analysesof similar nearshore hardbottom genera/species invertebrate mesograzers.Mesograzer SpeciesArtificial DietForaging ItemsLocation/Species RangeStudyLittorina obtusataAscophyllum nodosumAscophyllum nodosum(ungrazedbeforehand)North Atlantic Amsler (2001)Idotea granuloseAscophyllumnodosum AscophyllumnodosumNorth Atlantic Amsler (2001)Placida dendritica(sea slug)---Codium setchellii(Trowbridge, 1992) SE Australia Arrontes (1999)Ampithoe validaGracilaria(Nicotri, 1977)--- North Atlantic Arrontes (1999)Idotea balticaGracilaria(Nicotri, 1977)---North Atlantic/ BalticSeaArrontes (1999)Littorina littoreaFucus distichus(Van Alstyne, 1990)--- North Atlantic Arrontes (1999)Hyale mediaF. vesiculosus--- Brazil Arrontes(1999)Acmaea inessa--- Kelp:Egregia laevigata(Setchell)Brazil Arrontes (1999)Scurria scurra---Lessonia nigrescens(Munoz andSantelices, 1989)Brazil Arrontes(1999)Hyale---Iridaea laminarioidesBrazil Arrontes(1999)Aplysia californicaGracilaria ferox---CaliforniaBarile et al. (2004)Mytilus californiannus---Odonthalia floccoseOregon rockyintertidalBracken (2004)Diadema antillarum(urchin)Dictyota pulchella, Lobophoravariegate------ Mumby et al. (2006)Ampithoe longimanaUlvasp. (Enteromorpha),Hypneamusciformis, Gracilaria tikvahiae.Didnot discriminateRed, brown, green algae. Diatoms(Cousfield, 1973; Nelson, 1979b; Hay,1987, Duffy and Hay, 1991b, 1994)detritusWestern AtlanticCruz-Rivera and Hay(2001)Elasmopus levisUlvasp. (Enteromorpha),Hypneamusciformis, Gracilaria tikvahiae--- East coastCruz-Rivera and Hay(2001)Gammarus mucronatusUlvasp.(Enteromorpha),Hypneamusciformis, Gracilaria tikvahiae.Gut content, detritus, diatoms epiphyticalgae, macroalgae (Sanders, 1962;Zimmerman, 1979; Duffy and Hay,1994)East coastCruz-Rivera and Hay(2001)Ampithoe marcuzii---Sargassum filipendulaNorth Carolina Duffy (1990)Caprella penantis---Sargassum filipendulaNorth Carolina Duffy (1990)Jassa falcate---Sargassum filipendulaNorth Carolina Duffy (1990)Erichthonius brasiliensisSargassumfilipendula---North Carolina Duffy (1990)Elysia rufescens, ornataBryopsis pennata--- HongKongCruz-Rivera and Paul(2006)Menaethius monoceros(crab)Acanthophora spicifera--- HongKongCruz-Rivera and Paul(2006)Table D.1. (Continued).

Appendices D-3Mesograzer SpeciesArtificial DietForaging ItemsLocation/Species RangeStudyAmpithoe longimana---Sargassum filipendula, Dictyota,Padina gymnospora, Hypneamusciformis, Chondria dasyphylla,UlvaNorth Carolina Duffy and Hay (2000)Ampithoe longimanaDictyota dichotoma, Calonitophyllummedium(foliose)Hypnea musciformisand Chondria dasyphylla, Sargassumfilpendula--- North Carolina Duffy and Hay (1991)Limpets, coiled snails, chitons,isopods, amphipods, gastropod---Halimeda opuntia,Amphiroa sp,Bryothamnion seaforthiioccur on morecoral and rock. Sandy areas hadGracilaria, Halymenia, Solieria.Herbivore abundance correlate withpatterns.OregonGaines and Lubchenca(1982)Ilyanassa obsoleteUlva lactuca---Hog Island Bay,VirginiaGiannotti and McGlathery(2001)Littorina striataNo-choice lab experiments - highfeedingUlva (Enteromorphamuscoides), Ulva rigida.Little to nofeeding onAlsidium corallinumandLaurencia corrallopsis---Gran Canaria (wherealgae was collected)Granado and Caballero(2001)Osilinus atratusNo-choice lab experiments - highfeedingUlva (Enteromorphamuscoides), Ulva rigida.Little to nofeeding onAlsidium corallinumandLaurencia corrallopsis---Gran Canaria (wherealgae was collected)Granado and Caballero(2001)Grapsus albolineatusFilamentous algae Hong Kong Kennish (1997)Grapsus albolineatusEnteromorpha clathrata, Hincksiamitchelliae, Chaetomorpha antennina(filamentous which was eaten).Dermonema frappieri, Pterocladiatenuis, Porphyra suborbiculata, Ulvafasciata, and Endarachne Binghamiae(foliose which wasn’t eaten)--- HongKongKennish and Williams(1997)Viviparus viviparousChatophora incrassata, Chateophorapisiformis, Cladophora, Coleochaetepulvinata, Coleochaete scutata,mougeoutia, Oedogonium, Spirogyratenuissima, Cyanos Anabaena,anddifferent families ofRivulariacea,cyanophyta (12), Bacillariophyceae--- Sweden Liess and Kahlert (2007)Table D.1. (Continued).

Appendices D-4Mesograzer SpeciesArtificial DietForaging ItemsLocation/Species RangeStudyLittorina breviculaandHaliotis discusEcklonia cava --- Sangju, South Korea Molis et al. (2006)Diadema antillarum PhilippiHalimeda opuntia, Lobophoravariegata, Sargassumsp., Galaxaurasp.---Discovery Bay,JamaicaSolandt and Campbell(2001)Acmaea testudinalisClathromorphum circumscription---Subarctic westernNorth AtlanticSteneck (1982)Molluscs (divided by radulae-type)Cladophora, Polysiphonia, Ulva,Porphyra, Chondrus, Gigartina,Laminaria, Fucus, Corallina, Bossiella,Lithothamnium, Clathromorphum--- MarylandSteneck and Watling(1982)Sea urchinsS. franciscanus,S. drobachiensis, S. purpuratusNereocystis(liked),Costaria,L. saccharina, Callophyllis flabellulata,M. fuscum, A. cribrosum A. fimbriatum(disliked)---San Juan Island andWashington coastVadas (1977)Strongylocentrotus purpuratus(urchin),Lacuna porrecta, Tegulafunebralis(snails),Idoteawosnesenskii(isopod)KelpsBrown algae: Fucus gardneri andF. spiralis---Boiler Bay, Oregon Van Alstyne et al. (1999)Ampithoe ramondiBryopsis hypnoides, Centrocerasclavulatum, Ceramium flaccidum,Derbesia vaucheriaeformis,Enteromorpha prolifera (Ulva),Giffordia rallsiae, Polysiphoniahavanensis--- Washington, D.C. Brawley and Adey (1980)Appendices D-5 

### Table D.2. Summary of the most frequently found macr oalgae divisions and functional form groups that were found in foraging samples of juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) and herbivorous

fishes. Turtle data are derived from studies listed in Appendix A

, Table A.1 , and fish data

are from footnoted sources on Table D.3

.

Number of

Herbivorous

Fish/Turtles Macroalgal Species Functional Form Group Division

9 Ceramium sp. Filamentous Rhodophyta

9 Ulva sp. Sheet Chlorophyta

8 Polysiphonia sp. Filamentous Rhodophyta

8 Lyngbya sp. Filamentous Cyanobacteria

7 Centroceras sp. Filamentous Rhodophyta

7 Dictyota sp. Sheet Phaeophyta

6 Amphiroa sp. Jointed-calcareous Rhodophyta

6 Coelothrix sp. Coarsely-branched (fish only) Rhodophyta

6 Herposiphonia sp. Coarsely-branched Rhodophyta

6 Hypnea sp. Filamentous Rhodophyta

6 Laurencia sp. Coarsely-branched Rhodophyta

5 Gelidium sp. Coarsely-branched Rhodophyta

5 Caulerpa sp. Coarsely-branched Chlorophyta

5 Jania sp. Jointed-calcareous Rhodophyta



### Table D.3. Macroalgal species in foraging samples from different population studies conducted on juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) and herbivorous fish populations on nearshore

hardbottom habitat. Data are derived from Appendix A

, Table A.1 and footnoted sources.

Macroalgal SpeciesChelonia mydasAcanthurusScartellaEntomacrodusOphioblenniusKyphosusHolocanthusPomocanthusAbudefdufMicrospathodonStegastesSparisomaArchosargusDiplodusLagodon

Acanthophora muscoides √ √

Acanthophora sp. √ √

Acanthophora spicifera √

Agardhiella subulata √

Amphiroa fragillisma √

Amphiroa rigida √

Amphiroa sp. √ √ √ √

Asteromenia (Fauchea peltata) √

Avrainvillea sp. √

Bostrichia sp

. √

Botryocladia occidentalis √

Botryocladia sp. √ √

Bryocladia cuspidata √

Bryopsis pennata √

Bryopsis sp. √ √ √

Bryothamnion seaforthii √

Bryothamnion sp. √ √

Callithamnion sp. √

Caulerpa cupressoides √

Caulerpa mexicana √

Caulerpa microphysa √

Caulerpa peltata √

### Table D.3. (Continued).

Appendices D-6 Macroalgal SpeciesChelonia mydasAcanthurusScartellaEntomacrodusOphioblenniusKyphosusHolocanthusPomocanthusAbudefdufMicrospathodonStegastesSparisomaArchosargusDiplodusLagodon

Caulerpa prolifera √

Caulerpa racemosa √ √

Caulerpa sertularioides √

Caulerpa sp. √ √ √ √

Caulerpa taxifolia √ √

Centroceras clavulatum √ √ √

Centroceras sp. √ √ √ √

Ceramium byssoideum √

Ceramium sp

. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Chaetomorpha linum √

Chaetomorpha sp. √ √

Champia parvula √

Champia sp

. √

Chondria dasyphylla √

Chondria sp. √ √ √

Chondrocanthus acicularis √

Cladophora catenata √

Cladophora delicatula √

Cladophora sp. √ √ √

Codium isthmocladum √

Codium sp. √

Coelothrix irregularis √ √

Coelothrix sp

. √ √ √ √

Colpomenia sp. √

Cryptonemia crenulata √

Dascycladus vermicularis √

Dasya pedicillata √

Dasya sp. √

Dictyopteris delicatula √ √ √

Dictyopteris plagiogramma √

Dictyopteris sp. √ √ √

Dictyospareia sp. √ √

Dictyota bartayresii √ √

Dictyota dentata √

Dictyota divaricata √

Dictyota sp. √ √ √ √ √

Digenia sp. √

Dudresyna crassa √

Ectocarpus sp. √

Enteromorpha sp. √

Erythrotrichia carnea √

Eucheuma nudum √

Eucheuma sp. √ √

Galaxaura sp. √

Gelidiaceae √

Gelidiella sp. √ √

Gelidium americanum √

### Table D.3. (Continued).

Appendices D-7 Macroalgal SpeciesChelonia mydasAcanthurusScartellaEntomacrodusOphioblenniusKyphosusHolocanthusPomocanthusAbudefdufMicrospathodonStegastesSparisomaArchosargusDiplodusLagodon

Gelidium pusillum √

Gelidium rigidulum √

Gelidium sp. √ √ √ √

Gracilaria armata √

Gracilaria blodgettii √

Gracilaria mammillaris √

Gracilaria sp. √ √

Gracilaria tikvahiae √

Gracilaria verrucosa √

Halimeda discoidea √

Halimeda sp

. √ √

Halymenia florisia √ √

Herposiphonia sp. √ √ √ √ √ √

Hypnea cervicornis √

Hypnea cornuta √

Hypnea musciformis √ √

Hypnea sp. √ √ √ √ √

Hypnea spinella √ √

Hypnea valentiae √

Jania adherens √ √

Jania rubens √

Jania sp. √ √ √ √

Laurencia corallopsis √

Laurencia gemmifera √

Laurencia obtusa √

Laurencia papillosa √

Laurencia poiteaui √

Laurencia sp

. √ √ √ √

Liagora sp. √

Lomentaria baileyana √

Neomeris annulata √

Nitophyllum punctatum √

Padina gymnospora √

Padina profunda √

Padina sp. √ √

Penicillus sp. √

Pocockiella sp. √ √ √

Polysiphonia sp. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Polysiphonia subtilissima √

Pterocladia sp. √

Rhizoclonium sp. √ √ √ √

Rhodymenia sp. √

Sargassum platycarpum √

Sargassum sp. √ √ √

Scinaia complanata √

Scinaia sp. √

Siphonocladus tropicus √

### Table D.3. (Continued).

Appendices D-8 Macroalgal SpeciesChelonia mydasAcanthurusScartellaEntomacrodusOphioblenniusKyphosusHolocanthusPomocanthusAbudefdufMicrospathodonStegastesSparisomaArchosargusDiplodusLagodon

Solieria sp. √

Spatoglossum sp. √

Sphacelaria sp. √

Spyridia filamentosa √ √

Spyridia sp. √ √

Turbinaria sp. √

Ulva lactuca √

Ulva sp. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Ulva sp. (Enteromorpha chaetomorphoides) √

Wrangelia argus √

Cyanobacteria

Anacystis sp. √ √ √

Calothrix sp. √

Lyngbya majuscula √

Lyngbya sp. √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Microcoleus sp. √ √ √ √

Oscillatoria sp

. √ √

Phormidium sp. √ √

Plectonema nostocorum √

Plectonema sp. √

Schizothrix arenaria √

Schizothrix calcicola √

General Categories

Plants and algae √ 1

Algae √ 2 √ 2, 3 √ 7 √ 8 √ 7, 9

Benthic algae/weeds √ 4

Detritus & diatoms √ 5

Filamentous green √ 6

1 Dominici-Arosemena and Wolff, 2005.

2 Hourigan et al., 1989.

3 Feddern, 1968.

4 Randall, 1967.

5 Randall, 1965.

6 Irvine, 1982 in Gerking ,1994.

7 Hay and Sutherland, 1988.

8 Carr and Adams, 1972; Pike and Lindquis t, 1994; Hay and Sutherland, 1988.

9 Motta et al., 1995.