Marine Biology

, Volume 120, Issue 1, pp 25–31 | Cite as

Effects of an open-coast oil-production outfall on patterns of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) recruitment

  • D. C. Reed
  • R. J. Lewis
  • M. Anghera


Field and laboratory experiments were used to investigate the spatial scale of benthic effects of an active nearshore produced-water (=aqueous wastes of oil and gas production) outfall on various components of recruitment in the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Results showed that discernible effects on all parameters measured were limited to areas very close to the outfall (<50 m). Zoospore production in sporophytes transplanted to varying distances from the diffusers did not vary in a systematic way. Survival and successful reproduction (i.e., sporophyte production) of outplanted gametophytes varied significantly among experimental dates. Performance of these parameters was significantly reduced only at the site nearest the diffusers (5 m away). Poor gametophyte survival near the outfall may have resulted from exploitative competition with Beggiatoa sp. (a fast-growing filamentous marine bacteria that exploits areas high in hydrogen sulfide, an abundant constituent of the produced-water effluent) rather than from toxicity of produced water. Laboratory assays indicated that gametophyte reproduction and subsequent sporophyte production were inhibited at levels likely to occur within the near vicinity of the diffusers. Nonetheless, field data indicate that the lack of sporophyte production near the diffusers probably resulted from factors affecting gametophyte survival.


Sulfide Produce Water Hydrogen Sulfide Marine Bacterium Laboratory Assay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson BS, Hunt JW (1988) Bioassay methods for evaluating the toxicity of heavy metals, biocides, and sewage effluent using microscopic stages of giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera (Agardh): a preliminary report. Mar envirl Res 26: 113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Turpen SL, Coulon AR, Martin M (1990) Copper toxicity to microscopic stages of giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera: interpopulation comparisons and temproral variability. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 68: 147–156Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong HW, Fuick K, Anderson J, Neff JM (1979) Effects of oilfield brine effluent on sediments and benthic organisms in Trinity Bay, Texas. Mar envirl Res 2: 55–69Google Scholar
  4. Boesch DF, Rabalais NN (eds) Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas development. Elsevier Applied Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgman MA, Gerard VA (1990) A stage-structured, stochastic population model for the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Mar Biol 105: 15–23Google Scholar
  6. Chung IK, Brinkhuis BH (1986) Copper effects in early life stages of kelp, Laminaria saccharina. Mar Pollut Bull 17: 213–218Google Scholar
  7. Derenbach JB, Gereck MV (1980) Interference of petroleum hydrocarbons with the set pheromone reaction of Fucus vesiculosus (L.). J exp mar Biol Ecol 44: 61–65Google Scholar
  8. Deysher LE, Dean TA (1984) Critical irradiance levels and the interactive effects on quantum irradiance and quantum dose on gametogenesis in the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera. J Phycol 20: 520–524Google Scholar
  9. Deysher L, Dean TA (1986) In situ recruitment of the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera: effects of physical factors. J exp mar Biol Ecol 103: 41–63Google Scholar
  10. Duggins DO, Simenstad CA, Estes JA (1989) Magnification of secondary production by kelp detritus in coastal marine ecosystems. Science, NY 245: 170–173Google Scholar
  11. Dunton KH, Schell DM (1987) Dependence of consumers on macroalgal (Laminaria solidungula) carbon in an arctic kelp community: δ13C evidence. Mar Biol 93: 615–625Google Scholar
  12. Foster MS, Neushul M, Zingmark R (1971) The Santa Barbara oil spill. II. Initial effects on intertidal and kelp bed organisms. Envir Pollut 2: 115–134Google Scholar
  13. Foster MS, Schiel DR (1985) The ecology of giant kelp forests in California: a community profile. US Fish Wildl Serv biol Rep 85 (7.2): 1–152Google Scholar
  14. Higashi RM, Cherr GN, Bergens CA, Fan T-WM (1992) An approach to toxicant isolation from produced water source in the Santa Barbara Channel. In: Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) Produced water. Plenum Press, New York, p 223–234Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs RPWM, Grant ROH, Kwant J, Marquenie JM, Mentzer E (1992) The composition of produced water from Shell operated oil and gas production in the North Sea: In: Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) Produced water. Plenum Press, New York, p 13–22Google Scholar
  16. James DE, Manley SL Carter MC, North WJ (1987) Effects of PCBs and hydrazine on life processes in microscopic stages of selected brown seaweeds. Hydrobiologia 151/152: 411–415Google Scholar
  17. James DE, Stull JK, North WJ (1990) Toxicity of sewage-contaminated sediment cores to Macrocystis pyrifera (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) gametophytes determined by digital image analysis. Hydrobiologia 204/205: 483–489Google Scholar
  18. Jensen A (1984) Marine ecotoxicological tests with seaweeds. In: Persoone G, Jaspers E, Claus C (eds) Ecotoxicological testing for the marine environment. Vol 1. State University of Ghent and Institute for Marine Scientific Research, Bredene, p 181–190Google Scholar
  19. Krause PR (1993) Effects of produced water on reproduction and early life stages of the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus): field and laboratory tests. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  20. Lüning K, Neushul M (1978) Light and temperature demands for growth and reproduction of laminarian gametophytes in southern and central California. Mar Biol 45: 297–309Google Scholar
  21. Mann KH (1973) Seaweeds: their productivity and strategy for growth. Science, NY 182: 975–981Google Scholar
  22. Martin M, Hunt JW, Anderson BS, Turpen SL, Palmer FH (1989) Experimental evaluation of the mysid Holmesimvsis costata as a test organism for effluent toxicity testing. Envir Toxic Chem 8: 1003–1012Google Scholar
  23. Martin M, Osborn KE, Billig P, Gilckstein N (1981) Toxicities of ten metals to Crassostrea gigas and Mytilus edulis embryos and Cancer magister larvae. Mar Pollut Bull 12: 305–308Google Scholar
  24. McPeak RH (1981) Fruiting in several species of Laminariales from southern California. Proc int Seaweed Symp 8 (Bangor, 1974): 404–409 [Fogg GE, Jones WE (eds) Marine Science Laboratory, Menai Bridge, N. Wales]Google Scholar
  25. Middleditch BS (1984) Ecological effects of produced water effluents from offshore oil and gas production platforms. Ocean Mgmt 9: 191–316Google Scholar
  26. Murdoch WW, Ray RC, Mechalas BJ (1989) Final report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission. Docums mar Rev Comm, mar Sci Inst, Univ Calif, S Barbara 89-02: 1–340Google Scholar
  27. Nisbet RM, Bence JR (1989) Alternative dynamic regimes for canopy-forming kelp: a variant on density-vague population regulation. Am Nat 134: 377–408Google Scholar
  28. Osenberg CW, Schmitt RJ, Holbrook SJ, Canestro D (1992) Spatial scale of ecological effects associated with an open coast discharge of produced water. In: Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) Produced water. Plenum Press, New York, p 387–402Google Scholar
  29. Provasoli L (1968) Media and prospects for the cultivation of marine algae. In: Watanabe A, Hatori A (eds) Cultures and collections of algae. Proceedings of the United States-Japan Conference, Hakone. Japanese Society of Plant Physiologists, Kyoto, Japan, p 63–75Google Scholar
  30. Raimondi PT, Reed DC (1994) Interaction between life history attributes and the scale of ecological impacts. In: Schmitt RJ, Osenberg CW (eds) The design of ecological impact assessment studies: conceptual issues and application in coastal marine habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Raimondi PT, Schmitt RJ (1992) Effects of produced water on settlement of larvae: field tests using the red abalone. In: Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) Produced water. Plenum Press, New York, p 415–430Google Scholar
  32. Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) (1992) Produced water. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Reed DC (1987) Factors affecting sporophyll production in the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. J exp mar Biol Ecol 113: 60–69Google Scholar
  34. Reed DC (1990) The effects of variable settlement and early competition on patterns of kelp recruitment. Ecology 71: 776–787Google Scholar
  35. Reed DC, Laur DR, Ebeling AW (1988) Variation in algal dispersal and recruitment: the importance of episodic events. Ecol Monogr 58: 321–335Google Scholar
  36. Reed DC, Lewis RJ (1994) Effects of an oil and gas-production effluent on the colonization potential of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) zoospores. Mar Biol 119: 277–283Google Scholar
  37. SAS Institute Inc (1985) SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. Version 6th edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  38. Steele RL, Thursby GB (1988) Laboratory culture of gametophytic stages of the marine macroalgae Champia parvula (Rhodophyta) and Laminaria saccharina (Phaeophyta). Envir Toxic Chem 7: 997–1002Google Scholar
  39. Stephenson MT (1992) A survey of produced water studies. In: Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) Produced water. Plenum Press, New York, p 1–13Google Scholar
  40. Stewart-Oaten A, Murdoch WW, Parker K (1987) Environmental impact assessment: pseudoreplication in time? Ecology 67: 929–940Google Scholar
  41. Thursby GB, Steele RS (1986) Comparison of short- and long-term sexual reproduction tests with the marine red alga Champia parvula. Envir Toxic Chem 5: 1013–1018Google Scholar
  42. Tibbets PJC, Buchanan IT, Gawel LJ, Large R (1992) A comprehensive determination of produced water composition. In: Ray JP, Engelhardt FR (eds) Produced water. Plenum Press, New York, p 97–112Google Scholar
  43. Wilson KC, Haker PL, Hanan DA (1978) Kelp restoration in southern California. In: Krause RW (ed) The marine plant biomass of the Pacific northwest coast. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, p 183–202Google Scholar
  44. Wilson KC, McPeak RH (1983) Kelp restoration. In: Bascom W (ed) The effects of waste disposal on kelp communities. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, p 199–216Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. C. Reed
    • 1
  • R. J. Lewis
    • 2
  • M. Anghera
    • 1
  1. 1.Coastal Research Center, Marine Science InstituteUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry, Fisheries and WildlifeUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations