Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 63–83 | Cite as

Sargassum on Santa Rosa Island, Florida: faunal use and beachgoer perception

  • Julie Ann Schultz Schiro
  • Klaus J. Meyer-Arendt
  • Sherry K. Schneider


The yearly influx of Sargassum onto the beaches of northwest Florida is considered a nuisance to some and a necessity to others. In Pensacola Beach, the Santa Rosa Island Authority rakes the wrack with mechanical beach cleaners to improve the aesthetic quality for beachgoers. The purpose of this study was three-fold: to evaluate the local faunal use of Sargassum wrack, to gauge public perception of Sargassum on the beach, and to test whether public perception of the beauty of the beach, the necessity of raking, and the likelihood of visiting could be influenced by a simple educational sign. A two-part methodology consisted of 1) systematic observation of faunal use, and 2) interviews of 200 beachgoers via a detailed pre-post/post only public use survey. Results showed that 11 of the 22 species of shorebirds documented, including two uncommon migrants, were observed using Sargassum wrack to forage, rest, and hide. Public survey results demonstrated that although beachgoers generally considered themselves to be “ecofriendly”, their perceptions of Sargassum wrack can be positively influenced through environmental education such as informative signage on the beach. In conclusion, Sargassum wrack provides valuable additional habitat to shorebirds and other critters, and that leaving the beach wrack to naturally become part of the ecosystem would not deter most beachgoers (70%) from visiting Pensacola Beach. This research contributes valuable information to coastal managers and other stakeholders for improved ecosystem protection and management.


Sargassum Shorebirds Beach survey Beach management 


  1. Attorre F, Maggini A, Di Traglia M, De Sanctis M, Vitale M (2013) A methodological approach for assessing the effects of disturbance factors on the conservation status of Mediterranean coastal dune systems. Appl Veg Sci 16:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumann S, Schernewski G (2012) Occurrence and public perception of jellyfish along the German Baltic coastline. J Coast Conserv 16:555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caldwell N, Houser C, Meyer-Arendt K (2013) Ability of beach users to identify rip currents at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0673-3 Google Scholar
  4. Colombini I, Aloi A, Fallaci M, Pezzoli G, Chelazzi L (2000) Temporal and spatial use of stranded wrack by the macrofauna of a tropical sandy beach. Mar Biol 136(3):531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis WE Jr (2003) Commensal foraging and a “beater effect” involving ruddy turnstones, sanderlings, least sandpipers, and short-billed dowitchers. Fla Fld Naturalist 31(3):59–61Google Scholar
  6. Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, Dugan J, Jones A, Lastra M, Scapini F (2009) Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuar Coast Shelf S 81:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dugan JE, Hubbard DM (2010) Loss of coastal strand habitat in southern California: the role of beach grooming. Estuar Coasts 33:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dugan JE, Hubbard DM, McCrary MD, Pierson MO (2003) The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Estuar Coast Shelf S 58S:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. (2016) Hotspot map: Gulf Islands National Seashore-Fort Pickens. Available at Accessed 07 Nov 2016
  10. Fairweather PG, Henry RJ (2003) To clean or not to clean? Ecologically sensitive management of wrack deposits on sandy beaches. Ecol Manage Restor 4(3):227–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feagin RA, Williams AM (2008) Sargassum: erosion and biodiversity on the beach. Spatial Sciences Laboratory, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management. Texas A&M University. NOAA and GLO grant #07–005-10:1–23Google Scholar
  12. Feagin RA, Williams AM, Martinez ML, Perez-Maqueu O (2014) How does the social benefit and economic expenditures generated by a rural beach compare with its sediment replacement cost? Ocean Coast Manage 89:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2012) Sargassum seaweed. Available at Accessed 28 Feb 2013
  14. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) (2016a) Florida’s endangered and threatened species. Available at Accessed 26 Oct 2016
  15. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) (2016b) Florida shorebird database: annual report – 2014. Available at Accessed 24 Oct 2016
  16. Florida Shorebird Alliance (FSA) (2012) Guidelines to minimize impacts of mechanical beach raking on beach-dependent bird species along the Florida coast. Available at Accessed 24 Oct 2016
  17. Gheskiere T, Magda V, Greet P, Steven D (2006) Are strandline meiofaunal assemblages affected by a once-only mechanical beach cleaning? Experimental findings. Mar Environ Res 61:245–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gower JFR, King SA (2011) Distribution of floating Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean mapped using MERIS. Int J Remote Sens 32(7):1917–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall CM (2001) Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean Coast Manage 44:601–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harding JA, Borrie WT, Cole DN (2000) Factors that limit compliance with low-impact recommendations. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-VOL-4Google Scholar
  21. Houser C, Labude B, Haider L, Weymer B (2012) Impacts of driving on the beach: case studies from Assateague Island and Padre Island national seashore. Ocean Coast Manage 71(2013):33–45Google Scholar
  22. Jackson NL, Nordstrom KF (2011) Aeolian sediment transport and landforms in managed coastal systems: a review. Aeolian Res 3:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirkman H, Kendrick GA (1997) Ecological significance and commercial harvesting of drifting and beach-cast macro-algae and seagrasses in Australia: a review. J Appl Phycol 9:311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lafferty KD (2001) Birds at a southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biodivers and Conserv 10:1949–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lafferty KD, Rodriguez DA, Chapman A (2013) Temporal and spatial variation in bird and human use of beaches in Southern California. SpringerPlus 2(1):38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lapointe BE, Bedford BJ (2007) Drift Rhodophyte blooms emerge in Lee County, Florida, USA: evidence of escalating coastal eutrophication. Harmful Algae 6:421–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lekies KS, Whitworth B (2011) Constructing the nature experience: a semiotic examination of signs on the trail. Am Sociol 42:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLachlan A, Defeo O, Jaramillo E, Short AD (2013) Sandy beach conservation and recreation: guidelines for optimising management strategies for multi-purpose use. Ocean Coast Manage 71:256–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nordstrom KF, Lampe R, Vandemark LM (2000) Reestablishing naturally functioning dunes on developed coasts. Environ Manag 25(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nordstrom KF, Jackson NL, Klein AHF, Sherman DJ, Hesp PA (2006) Offshore aeolian transport across a low foredune on a developed barrier island. J Coastal Res 22(5):1260–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nordstrom KF, Jackson NL, Korotky KH, Puleo JA (2011) Aeolian transport rates across raked and unraked beaches on a developed coast. Earth Surf Proc Land 36:779–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nordstrom KF, Jackson NL, Freestone AL, Korotky KH, Puleo JA (2012) Effects of beach raking and sand fences on dune dimensions and morphology. Geomorphology 179:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Noriega R, Schlacher TA, Smeuninx B (2012) Reductions in ghost crab populations reflect urbanization of beaches and dunes. J Coastal Res 28(1):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ochieng CA, Erftemeijer PLA (1999) Accumulation of seagrass beach cast along the Kenyan coast: a quantitative assessment. Aquat Bot 65:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orr M, Zimmer M, Jelinski DE, Mews M (2005) Wrack deposition on different beach types: spatial and temporal variation in the pattern of subsidy. Ecology 86(6):1496–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rossi F, Olabarria C, Incera M, Garrido J (2010) The trophic significance of the invasive seaweed Sargassum muticum in sandy beaches. J Sea Res 63:52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell TL, Sassoubre LM, Zhou C, French-Owen D, Hassaballah A, Boehm AB (2014) Impacts of beach wrack removal via grooming on surf zone water quality. Environ Sci Technol 48:2203–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sibley DA (2014) The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Spotte S (2013) Laughing gulls (Leucphaeus atricilla) appear to “tread” for tiny crustaceans in sargassum weed (sargassum sp.) washed ashore from the Gulf of Mexico. Fla Fld Naturalist 41(3):80–82Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior (USFWS) (2013) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for the rufa red knot. Fed Regist 78(189):60024–60098Google Scholar
  41. Van Polaneen PT, Bunce A (2012) Understanding beach users’ behavior. Awareness, and attitudes to shorebird conservation in Central Queensland: tools for effective shorebird conservation. Coast Manage 40:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weston MA, Dodge F, Bunce A, Nimmo DG, Miller KK (2012) Do temporary beach closures assist in the conservation of breeding shorebirds on recreational beaches? Pac Conserv Biol 18:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams A, Feagin R (2010) Sargassum as a natural solution to enhance dune plant growth. Environ Manag 46:738–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams A, Feagin R, Stafford AW (2008) Environmental impacts of beach raking of Sargassum spp. on Galveston Island, Texas. Shore and Beach 76:63–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ScholarPensacolaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Earth & Environmental SciencesUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations