Advertisement

Seagrass Recovery in Tampa Bay, Florida (USA)

  • Holly Greening
  • Anthony Janicki
  • Ed T. Sherwood
Reference work entry

Abstract

In Tampa Bay, Florida, USA, reduction in wastewater nutrient loading of approximately 90% in the late 1970s resulted in rapid reduction of more than 50% of external total nitrogen loading. Continuing nutrient management actions from public and private sectors are associated with a steadily declining TN load rate since the mid-1980s -- despite an increase of more than 1M people living within the Tampa Bay metropolitan area since then—and with concomitant reduction in chlorophyll-a concentrations and ambient nutrient concentrations. Seagrass extent has increased by more than 65% since the 1980s, and in 2014 exceeded the recovery goal adopted in 1996. There is evidence that Tampa Bay’s successful seagrass recovery may provide additional benefits, including buffering of global ocean acidification trends and increased carbon sequestration, both of which can be important to compensate for negative impacts of CO2 emissions. Maintaining Tampa Bay’s positive trajectory towards recovery will require continued watershed-based nutrient management and community involvement.

Keywords

Tampa Bay, Florida, USA Seagrass recovery Watershed-based nutrient reduction Climate change impacts 

References

  1. Boesch D, Brinsfield RB, Magnien RE. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture. J Environ Qual. 2001;30:303–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bricker SB, Clement CG, Pirhalla DE, Orlando SP, Farrow DGG. National estuarine eutrophication assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries. Special projects office and the national centers for coastal ocean science, national ocean service, national oceanic and atmospheric administration. Silver Spring; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. Bricker S, Longstaff B, Dennison W, Jones A, Boicourt K, Wicks C, Woerner J. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries: a decade of change. NOAA coastal ocean program decision analysis series no. 26. Silver Spring: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Carstensen J, Sánchez-Camacho M, Duarte CM, Krause-Jensen D, Marbâ N. Connecting the dots: responses of coastal ecosystems to changing nutrient concentrations. Environ Sci Tech. 2011;45:9122–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cloern JE. Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;210:223–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duarte CM, Borja A, Carstensen J, Elliott M, Karawuse-Jensen D, Marbâ N. Paradigms in the recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Estuar Coasts. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9750-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garnier J, Billen G, Hannen E, Fonbonne S, Videnina Y, Soulie M. Modeling transfer and retention of nutrients in the drainage network of the Danube River. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2002;54:285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greening H, Janicki A. Toward reversal of eutrophic conditions in a subtropical estuary: water quality and seagrass response to nitrogen loading reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Environ Manag. 2006;38:163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greening HS, Cross LM, Sherwood ET. A multiscale approach to seagrass recovery in Tampa Bay, Florida. Ecol Restor. 2011;29:82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greening H, Janicki A, Sherwood ET, Pribble R, Johansson JOR. Ecosystem responses to long-term nutrient management in an urban estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2014;151:A1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Helsinki Commission. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea – an integrated thematic assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region: Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings Number 115B; 2009.Google Scholar
  12. Johansson JOR. Shifts in phytoplankton, macroalgae and seagrass with changing nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay, Florida. In: Treat SF, editor. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, BASIS 4; 2003 Oct 27–30; St. Petersburg. p. 31–9.Google Scholar
  13. Kemp WM, Boynton WR, Adolf JE, Boesch DF, Boicourt WC, Brush G, Cornwell JC, Fisher TR, Glibert PM, Hagy JD, Harding LW, Houde ED, Kimmel DG, Miller WD, Newell RIE, Roman MR, Smith EM, Stevenson JC. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historic trends and ecological interactions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;303:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyers SD, Linville A, Luther ME. Alteration of residual circulation due to large-scale infrastructure in a coastal plain estuary. Estuar Coasts. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9691-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrison G, Greening HS, Sherwood ET, Yates KK. Management case study: Tampa Bay, Florida. Ref Module Earth Syst Environ Sci. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09125-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Research Council (NRC). Clean coastal waters: understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient pollution. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. Nixon SW. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia. 1995;41:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Orth RJ, McGlathery KJ. Eelgrass recovery in the coastal bays of the Virginia Coast Reserve, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012;448:173–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Osterblom H, Hansson S, Larsson U, Hjerne O, Wulff F, Elmgren R, Folke C. Human-induced trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts in the Baltic Sea. Ecosystems. 2007;10:877–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riemann B, Carstensen J, Dahl K et al. Recovery of Danish coastal ecosystems after reductions in nutrient loading: a holistic ecosystem approach. Estuaries and Coasts. 2016;29:82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sheehan L, Crooks S. Tampa Bay blue carbon assessment: summary of findings. Technical report #07-16 of the Tampa Bay estuary program. 2016.Google Scholar
  22. Sherwood ET. 2015 Tampa Bay water quality assessment. Technical report #01-16 of the Tampa Bay estuary program. 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Sherwood ET, Greening HS. Potential impacts and management implications of climate change on Tampa Bay Estuary critical coastal habitats. Environ Manag. 2014;53:401–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sherwood ET, Greening HS, Janicki AJ, Karlen DJ. Tampa Bay estuary: monitoring long-term recovery through regional partnerships. Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2016;4:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Valiela I, Bartholomew M. Land-sea coupling and global-driven forcing: following some of Scott Nixon’s challenges. Estuar Coasts. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9808-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Valiela I, Foreman K, LaMontagne M, Hersh D, Costa J, Peckol P, DeMeo-Anderson B, D’Avenzo C, Babione M, Sham C, Brawley J, Lajtha K. Couplings of watersheds and coastal waters: sources and consequences of nutrient enrichment in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries. 1992;15:443–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weisberg RH, Zheng L. Circulation of Tampa Bay driven by buoyancy, tides, and winds, as simulated using a finite volume coastal ocean model. J Geophys Res. 2006;111.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003067.
  28. Williams MR, Filoso S, Longstaff BJ, Dennison WC. Long-term trends of water quality and biotic metrics in Chesapeake Bay: 1986 to 2008. Estuar Coasts. 2010;33:1279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yates K, Greening H, Morrison G, editors. Integrating science and resource management in Tampa Bay, Florida. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1348; 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tampa Bay Estuary ProgramSt. PetersburgUSA
  2. 2.Janicki Environmental, Inc.St. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations