lessons learned about oyster recruitment dynamics from ...lessons learned about oyster recruitment...

Lessons Learned About Oyster Recruitment Dynamics from Coast-Wide Collaboration

Kerstin Wasson Brent B. HughesJohn S. BerrimanAndrew L. ChangAnna K. DeckPaul A. DinnelSarah DudasCharlie EndrisMichael EspinozaMatthew C. FernerEdwin D. GrosholzDavid Kimbro Jennifer L. RuesinkAlan C. TrimbleDick Vander SchaafChela J. ZabinDanielle C. Zacherl

Impetus: Recruitment at Elkhorn Slough

Recruitment monitoring

Lots of recruitment…in some years

Recruitment variability

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year

Aver

age

dens

ity o

f rec

ruits

per

m2

Virtually no recruitment since 2012

Big recruitment event

Super big recruitment

event

Recruitment variability

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year

Aver

age

dens

ity o

f rec

ruits

per

m2



event


Photo by Erin Garcia

Restoration efforts with native clam shells to form naturalistic clusters

But restoration depends on recruitment

So raised new generation in the lab

Oly aquaculture: another topic for coastwide collaboration

Photo: Dan Gossard

Hatchery-raised juveniles in recruitment-limited estuaries

Illustration: J. Blum

Supply-side ecology: importance of recruits

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year

Aver

age

dens

ity o

f rec

ruits

per

m2



event


How typical is this?

Paul Dinnel, Fidalgo Bay

Jennifer Ruesink, Alan Trimble, Willapa BayDick Van der Schaaf, Netarts Bay

Edwin Grosholz, David Kimbro, Anna Deck, Chela Zabin, Tomales BayAndy Chang, Anna Deck, Matt Ferner, San Francisco Bay

Kerstin Wasson, Elkhorn Slough

Danielle Zacherl, John Berriman, Michael Espinosa, Newport Bay

Collaboration across 2500 km of coast

Edwin Grosholz, Chela Zabin

Sarah Dudas, Strait of Georgia

Do other bays have years with zero recruitment?

Fidalgo Bay

Willapa BayNetarts Bay

Tomales BaySan Francisco Bay

Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay

Patterns at level of 37 individual sites

Strait of Georgia54% of siteshad some years with zero recruitment

Fidalgo Bay



Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay

Bay-wide patterns

Strait of Georgia

4/8 bays had years with zero recruitment at all sites in the bay

Do other bays have years with zero recruitment?

YES

Is variance in recruitment driven by broad regional factors, and thus synchronous across systems?

Moran effect

Synchrony of separate populations due to shared environmental drivers

Fidalgo Bay



Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay

Moran effect and Olympia oysters:Coastwide effects

Strait of Georgia

e.g.Pacific Decadal Oscillation

Fidalgo Bay



Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay

Moran effect and Olympia oysters:Regional effects

Strait of Georgia

e.g.ENSO

Synchrony due to shared larval pool

E.g.San Francisco Bay as source to adjacent sites

Estuary Site name Site #

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%

Schooner Cove 2 100% 23% 9%

Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%

*Ladysmith Harbour 4 10% 53% 100%

Fidalgo Bay Trestle Plot B 5 2% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 2% 7% 41% 35%

*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%

Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%

Long Island Slough 8 3% 2% 3% 1% 100% 16%

Netarts Bay Netarts Bay 9 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%

W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%

E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%

W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%

*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%

W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%

E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%

W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%

*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%

Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%

Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%

Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%

Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%

Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%

Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%

Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%

North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%

Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%

Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%

*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%

South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%

Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%

Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%

Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%

Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%

*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%

Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%

Tomales Bay

San Francisco Bay

Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay

Recruitment percent relative to best year

Strait of Georgia

Willapa Bay

Interannualrecruitment patterns

37 sites from North to South

Coloring is based on relative scale

100% is best recruitment year for that site

All other years relative to that

0% is no recruitment


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%


Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%



*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%

Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%



E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%

W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%

E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%

W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%

*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%

W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%

E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%

W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%

*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%

Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%

Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%

Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%

Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%

Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%

Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%

Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%

North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%

Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%

Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%

*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%

South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%

Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%

Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%

Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%

Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%

*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%

Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%

Tomales Bay

San Francisco Bay

Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay


Strait of Georgia

Willapa Bay

No synchrony

Do you see any columns (=years) that are mostly reddish or mostly greenish?

NO

Sites do not share same good and bad years

(See our Ecology paper for fancy statistical tests for synchrony: multivariate nMDS plots and synchrony-by-distance analyses)

Is variance in recruitment driven by broad regional factors, and thus synchronous across systems?

NOReject strong Moran effect or shared larval pool

Local dynamics are keyImportant role for watershed/estuary management

Is variance in recruitment synchronous WITHIN bays?


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%


Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%



*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%

Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%



E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%

W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%

E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%

W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%

*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%

W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%

E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%

W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%

*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%

Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%

Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%

Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%

Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%

Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%

Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%

Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%

North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%

Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%

Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%

*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%

South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%

Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%

Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%

Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%

Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%

*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%

Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%

Tomales Bay

San Francisco Bay

Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay


Strait of Georgia

Willapa Bay

Synchrony among sites within estuary

Strong synchrony within two estuaries,

Willapa BayElkhorn Slough

Note this makes them prone to estuary-wide recruitment failure in bad years


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%


Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%



*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%

Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%



E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%

W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%

E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%

W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%

*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%

W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%

E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%

W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%

*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%

Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%

Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%

Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%

Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%

Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%

Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%

Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%

North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%

Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%

Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%

*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%

South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%

Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%

Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%

Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%

Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%

*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%

Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%

Tomales Bay

San Francisco Bay

Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay


Strait of Georgia

Willapa Bay

Synchrony among sites within bay

Most of the bays had no or very weak synchrony among sites

Note this makes them resilient to bay-wide recruitment failure

One site doing terribly but another doing well in a given year

Is variance in recruitment synchronous WITHIN bays?

Sometimes YESthis is where you get bay-wide failure

Often NO“portfolio effect” for recruitment: environmental heterogeneity buffers against having a bad year everywhere

What predicts recruitment failure?

Why do some bays have a lot more red

than others?


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Union Bay 1 100% 16% 29%


Nanaimo 3 100% 2% 7%



*Mill Channel 6 18% 1% 14% 3% 100% 76%

Station 3 7 5% 0.4% 3% 3% 100% 19%



E1 10 0.0% 100% 13% 13%

W1 11 0.0% 100% 0.0% 12%

E2 12 23% 100% 43% 32%

W2 13 0.0% 100% 0.0% 19%

*E3 14 0.0% 100% 82% 3%

W3 15 0.0% 74% 100% 44%

E4 16 0.5% 0.0% 100% 0.0%

W4 17 16% 100% 30% 9%

*China Camp 18 100% 18% 26% 42% 30%

Loch Lomond 19 100% 94% 58% 44% 13%

Point Orient 20 0.0% 0.0% 1% 35% 76% 48% 100%

Ferry Point 21 0.0% 0.0% 100% 16%

Tiburon 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Brickyard 23 21% 84% 76% 100% 46%

Berkeley 24 0.1% 4% 3% 30% 2% 45% 100%

Alameda 25 29% 7% 14% 100%

Oyster Point 26 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1% 28% 20% 100%

North Azevedo 27 100% 0.0% 0.0% 2% 96% 0.0% 0.0%

Kirby 28 100% 2% 2% 0.0% 14% 62% 0.0% 0.0%

Whistlestop 29 100% 0.0% 27% 0.0% 83% 54% 0.0% 0.0%

*Hummingbird 30 92% 100% 0.0% 0.5% 89% 0.0% 0.0%

South Marsh 31 0.0% 9% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0%

Rocky Point 32 83% 100% 49% 28% 37% 6% 45% 34% 26%

Coney Island 33 100% 18% 12% 14% 12% 5% 15% 19% 7%

Newport Wall 34 100% 33% 18% 25% 18% 10% 24% 42% 18%

Balboa Island 35 23% 52% 27% 79% 44% 23% 100% 80% 86%

*15th Street 36 18% 35% 6% 37% 16% 42% 100% 43% 43%

Public Dock 37 2% 16% 6% 50% 65% 26% 38% 100% 89%

Tomales Bay

San Francisco Bay

Elkhorn Slough

Newport Bay


Strait of Georgia

Willapa Bay

Because estuary is so small?

Good years vs. bad years due to oceanographic/climate drivers?

ELKHORN SLOUGH AS POSTER CHILDStrong marine influence?

Small size?

Marine influence: winter salinity

-.1

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6%

yea

rs w

ith 0

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34Salinity in w ettest season

Sites where strong marine influence leads to high winter salinity are prone to recruitment failure

(psu)

Prop

ortio

n ye

ars

with

failu

re R2 = 0.24, P = 0.002

Estuary size

10 km

Estuary size

-.1

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

% y

ears

with

0

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5log size

No relationship with recruitment failureNewport and Strait of Georgia bays are tiny but reliable

(hectares)

Prop

ortio

n ye

ars

with

failu

reR2 = 0.001, P = 0.9

Network of oyster sitesElkhorn Slough is very isolated, with a small network

10 km

Next oysters to North: 150 km

Next oysters to South: 450 km

Length of network: 7 km

Network of oyster sitesNewport Bay region has many sites nearby with oysters

NewportBay

10 km

Length of network:46 km

Network of oyster sites in/near bay

Bays with extensive networks of oyster sites have no recruitment failureInforms conservation and restoration plans

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

perc

ent y

ears

with

zer

o re

crui

tmen

t

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Length of adult oyster network (km)

R2 = 0.95, P < 0.0001

What predicts recruitment failure?

Marine influence? YESSize of embayment? NOSize of oyster network? YES

Restoration can improve this

Lessons learned from broad geographic analysis of oyster recruitment

• Recruitment failure is fairly common

• Aquaculture may be needed in recruitment-prone bays

• Not much synchrony among bays

• Synchrony within bays can result in bay-wide recruitment failutre

• Environmental heterogeneity provides “portfolio effect” – protection from bay-wide recruitment failure

• Restoring interconnected oyster networks will improve recruitment

Value of coast-wide collaboration

lessons learned about oyster recruitment dynamics from ...lessons learned about oyster recruitment...

Documents