Green Boston Harbor Invasive Species Monitoring 2009
Green Boston Harbor Project:Marine Invasive Species Monitoring in Boston HarborREPORTByAnamarija Frankic and Chris McIntyrePhoto by A. FrankicDecember 2009
Green Boston Harbor ProjectBACKGROUNDIn October 2008, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was established between UMass BostonDepartments of Marine Operations (DMO), Environmental Earth and Ocean Sciences (EEOS) and UrbanHarbors Institute and the City of Boston to designate responsibilities of the is listed parties in providingpump-out service, conducting marine research, promoting water quality awareness and education.The operational aspects of education, research and outreach are spearheaded by Dr. Anamarija Frankic,EEOS, which resulted in establishment of the Green Boston Harbor project (GBH; www.gbh.umb.edu).The main vision of the GBH is that a “green urban harbor” is a harbor that is managed withinenvironmental limitations, recognizes strength in ecological and human diversities, and supports local andplace-specific economic production within a regional and global context (Frankic 2004; Bowen et al2006). Human and non-human natural systems are tightly coupled, with complicated feedbacks betweensystems on multiple spatial scales and time frames; thus creating and supporting a green harbor willrequire a deep understanding of the ways that human behaviors respond to changes in the coastalenvironment as well as the ways coastal systems respond to changing patterns of human uses andactivities. The research undertaken by the GBH project will contribute both to developing ununderstanding of coupled systems, as well as assisting communities in implementing changes in usepatterns needed to sustain or restore the health of harbor ecosystems, with a long term goal of integratinghuman activities more seamlessly within local physical, chemical, and biological cycles. This integratedresearch can thus support effective coastal zone management based with both the best available scienceand the strengths of local human communities.GBH Project Goals:1. To assess, monitor, and evaluate relationships between natural changes incoastal ecosystems and corresponding local community changes, with aninitial focus on water quality concerns.2. To support coastal ecosystem stewardship through effective education,outreach, and other activities with local communities and harbor users,including involving these communities in research and monitoring efforts.3. To serve as a laboratory for transferable green harbor practices, includingdeveloping criteria for green harbors, methodologies for monitoring them,and strategies for incorporating broad community participation in greenharbor efforts.4. To establish the first Urban Coastal Forecasting Network to disseminate ourresults as widely as possible, including publication in the scientific literatureas well as distribution through more popular outlets (both traditional locisuch as community fora and through social media such as YouTube,Facebook, Twitter, Google Earth, etc).2
Green Boston Harbor ProjectMARINE INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORINGInvasive species have been identified as a major threat to local and global ecology and economy. Theannual cost of invasive species is estimated at 120 billion in the United States alone (Pimentel et al.2005). The Nature Conservancy estimates that invasive species have contributed to the decline of 42%threatened and endangered species in the US. /about/).The Massachusetts office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) in collaboration with the MassachusettsBays Program completed the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Management Plan in 2002 to address thecomplexity of this issue and to design a monitoring program. In the beginning of 2009, the GBH teamjoined CZM efforts as a volunteer in the Marine Invader Monitoring and Information Collaborative(MIMIC). By signing the 2009 MIMIC monitoring agreement, the GBH became responsible forusing MIMIC protocols to monitor and report data from various sites within the harbor. In June2009, the GBH team members began monitoring invasive species at six locations throughout theharbor (Table 1; Fig 1).METHODOLOGYSite monitoring was conducted using MIMIC protocol and site visits were conducted twice a week onaverage (CZM 2008). The MIMIC protocol involves making repeated visits to selected sites. MIMICprotocol outlines methods for monitoring cobble shores, tidal pools and floating docks. According to theMIMIC protocol, floating docks are currently the only available type of sites within the inner BostonHarbor (Fig 1). MIMIC protocol involves taking a visual assessment of species present and categorizingfrequency as: “ABUNDANT, COMMON, FEW, RARE, ABSENT”. Images of were taken for unknownor uncertain species and sent to CZM experts for identifications.3
Green Boston Harbor ProjectTable 1. Invasive species monitoring sites in Boston HarborSite name1. Black ption/Street accessBlack Falcon Ave.Boston, MA 022102. BH Shipyard& Marina(Pier 4)42.3634-71.0341Opposite 218Marginal StreetBoston, MA 021283. Rowes Wharf4. ConstitutionMarina5. MysticMarine and . Fox PointLanding42.3114-71.0399E. India RowBoston, MA 02110Warren Street,Boston, MA 0212900 Terminal Street,Charlestown, MA,MA 02129 (MysticMarine Discounts)UMASS BostonDMO dock Boston,MA 02125MonitoringTypesMarine Invasive sp.Primary Pump-outboat discharge stationMarine Invasive sp.Marine Invasive sp.Marine Invasive sp.Marine Invasive sp.Secondary Pump-outboat discharge stationInvasive sp.;PlanktonWare qualityFigure 1: Invasive species six monitoring sites in Boston Harbor4
Green Boston Harbor ProjectRESULTSSpecies occurrence varied slightly from site to site and is detailed in Table 2. Ten invasive speciesindicated in the MIMIC protocol were identified throughout the season. Non-native species that were notspecified by MIMIC include: Ciona intestinalis (solitary tunicate) and Caprella mutica (Japaneseskeleton shrimp). Findings for each site are presented below in Figures 2 – 11. Abundance values aredisplayed on the Y axis and were adapted from the CZM protocol (0 absent, 1 rare, 2 few, 3 common, 4 abundant). Dates of visits are listed along the X axis and species are designated by differentcolors. Please note that data from some sites are displayed on two separate graphs.Site #1: The Black Falcon Cruise Terminal features a 120 foot steel float that was monitored five timesfrom July through September (Figs 2 and 3). Located adjacent to MASSPORT Conley ContainerTerminal, this site receives a high volume of large international shipping. The species Didemnum wasobserved for the first and in Boston Harbor at this site on 29-July, 2009. The observed colonies persistedand continued to grow throughout the season.Black Falcon Terminal Invasive Species 2009Figure 25
Green Boston Harbor ProjectFigure 34.54Abundanc e3.53H. s anguineus2.5S . c lava2Didemnun1.5Membranipora10.50'17-J ul''29-J ul''8-A ug''26-A ug''16-S ep'Da te of S ite V isitSite #2: Boston Harbor Shipyard was the only site located on the eastside of the Inner Harbor. The sitefeatured wooden floats with abundant shade on one side and sunlight on the other. The majority ofinvasive animals were found on the shaded side of the floats while algal growth was dominant on thesunlit side. Observations of large predatory fish such as Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass) and Tautogaonitis (Tautog) were common among the pilings at this site (Figs 4 and 5).Boston Harbor Shipyard Invasive Species 2009Figure 46
Green Boston Harbor ProjectFigure 5B os ton Harbor S hipyard Invas ives (2009)Abundanc e54H. s anguineus3Membranipora s p.2D. lineata1S . c lava0'5-J un''7-J ul''29-J ul''8-A ug''26-A ug'Da te of S ite V isitSite #3: Rowes Wharf featured the red algae G. turuturu, which was unique to the inner harbor sites. Thiswas also the only site other than Black Falcon Terminal to have the presence of Didemnun. The floatshere featured plastic materials that were regularly scraped by the marina employees (Figs 6 and 7).Rowes Wharf Invasive Species 2009Figure 67
Green Boston Harbor ProjectFigure 73.5Abundanc e32.5Didemnun2Membranipora1.5G . turuturu10.50'11-A ug''26-A ug''16-S ep'Da te of S ite V isitSite #4: Constitution Marina is located directly adjacent to the freshwater input from the Charles Riverresulting in a distinctly deeper halocline that restricted near-surface growth of most species. The onlyspecies found near the surface, was D. lineate. It has been observed that invasions in North Americanwater are related to salinity with significantly more invasions occurring in high (polyhaline and euhaline)than low salinity zones (Ruiz et al. 2000). The other species observed were found on hanging linestypically about 5 feet below the surface of the water(Figs 8 and 9).Constitution Marina Invasive Species 2009Figure 88
Green Boston Harbor ProjectFigure 94.54Abundanc e3.53H. s anguineus2.52D. lineata1.5S . c lava10.50'17-J ul''29-J ul''11-A ug''26-A ug''16-S ep'Da te of S ite V isitSite #5: Mystic Marine was added to late in the season and was monitored once (Fig. 10).Mystic Marine Fuel Invasive Species 2009Figure 109
Green Boston Harbor ProjectSite #6: Fox Point Landing, located at UMass Boston, is the only site located outside the InnerHarbor. No observed species were unique to this site (Fig. 11).Fox Point Landing Invasive Species 2009Figure 1110
Green Boston Harbor ProjectInvasive species images (by C. McIntyre):Ascidiella aspersa (Europeansea squirt)Botrylloides violaceus (Orange sheathCarcinus maenas (EuropeanBotryllus schlosseri (Star tunicate)Styela clava (ClubHemigrapsus sanguineus (Asian shore crab)11tunicate)tunicate)green crab)
Green Boston Harbor ProjectInvasive species images continued:Membranipora membranacea (Lacy crustbryozoans)Diadumene lineate (Orange-stripedGrateloupia turuturu (RedDidemnun sp (Mystery tunicate)anemone)algae)Caprella mutica (Japanese skeleton shrimp)Not listed by MIMICCiona intestinalis (Not listed by MIMIC)12
Green Boston Harbor ProjectTable 2. Names, description and locations of identified invasive speciesSpeciesSites ObservedAverage abundance/SeasonalPopulationPatternsAbundant at 3 sites (1,2,4)from mid July to late August anddeclined significantly by midSeptember.Abundance peaked in July andAugust and declined in midSeptember.Ascidiella aspersa(European seasquirt)Present at all sitesexcept RowesWharfBotrylloidesviolaceus(orange sheathtunicate)Observed at everysiteBotryllusschlosseri(star tunicate)Observed at everysiteB. Schlosseri displayed a consistentpopulation rise and fall reachingabundance at 4 sites (1,3,4,5) anddeclined to “few” by 9/16/09.Carcinus maenas(European greencrab)Observed at everysiteThe green crab was found at everysite and was generally seen nearpilings and structure that hung low inthe water.Hemigrapsussanguineus (Asianshore crab)Observed at sites(1,2,4,6)As with the green crab, this crab wasobserved near structure that reachedthe bottom. Sightings were random.Styela clava (Clubtunicate)Observed at everysiteMembraniporamembranacea(lacy crustbryozoan)Diadumene lineate(orange-stripedanemone)Observed at 3 sites(1,3,4)Very common and abundant at allsites in early July. Abundancepeaked in August and populationsdeclined in September.The bryozoan was found consistentlyin “common” abundance at siteswhere it was presentObserved at 4sites(1,2,5,6)This anemone reached peakabundance in August and declined bymid SeptemberDidemnun sp.(mystery tunicate)Observed at 2 sites(3,4)Initially observed in small clusters atBlack Falcon in late July, thepopulation grew rapidly andmaintains an “abundant” presence.Grateloupiaturuturu(red algae)Observed atRowes Wharf onlyInitially documented in late Augustby CZM observer and was abundantinto mid September.13NotesNot observed at Roweswharf and generally inhigher abundance atdeeper/ saltier zone.Observed near thesurface in manylocations and formedlarge communitieswith varying colormorphs.Communities of thistunicate tend to besmaller and noncontiguous forming thecharacteristic “goldstar” configuration.All sites incorporatedor consisted solely offloating docks thatlimit the access bynon-swimming crabs.On a single visit toLovell’s Island, bothcrabs were observedunder rocks in heavyabundanceClub tunicate wassubject to encrustationby B. violaceus andDidemnun.This encrustingbryozoan was commonon native red algae P.palmataClusters of thisanemone were foundnear the surface inisolated but densecommunities.According to CZMrepresentatives this isthe first timeDidemnun has beenobserved in BostonHarbor.Presently isolatedpopulation wasobserved in previousyears.
Green Boston Harbor ProjectDISCUSSIONGBH team is planning to expand the invasive species monitoring project, and include water qualitymonitoring at the sites by using YCI probe (model 556). For the Season 2010, starting on May 1, we aregoing to continue with public outreach and education, by improving our GBH brochures and web siteinformation. Invasive species are potential indicators of water quality and incorporating this study withother GBH projects such as plankton monitoring, oyster/ mussel restoration, and salt marsh restorationswill contribute to better assessment of the harbor ecosystems conditions and bring the GBH a step closerto the goal of becoming a “Green Harbor”.In addition, we are considering a possibility of expanding the invasive species monitoring to incorporateassessment of native species monitoring at the same sites in Boston harbor. However, current MIMICprotocols will need to be enhanced in order to make more accurate assessments of species composition,abundance and correlation with native species composition and abundance in the Boston Harbor.14
Green Boston Harbor ProjectReferences:Bowen, B, A. Frankic, and M. Davis. 2006. Human development and resources use in the coastal zone:influences on human health. Oceanography, 19 (2):62-71.Connell, S. D. 2000. Floating pontoons create novel habitats for subtidal epibiota. Journal ofExperimental Marine Biology and Ecology 247: 183-194.Connell, S. D. 2001. Urban structures as marine habitats: an experimental comparison of thecomposition and abundance of subtidal epibiota among pilings, pontoons and rocky reefs.Marine Environmental Research 52: 115-125.CZM, 2008. Monitoring Marine Invasive Species: Guidance and Protocols for Volunteer MonitoringGroups. ngprotocol.htmFrankic, A. 2004. The environment sets the limits for sustainable coastal management anddevelopment. Workshop on marine spatial planning: Making the Plan. University of Gent,Belgium, January 15-18 2004.Greene, C. H., Schoener, A., and E. Corets. 1983. Succession on marine hard substrata: Theadaptive significance of solitary and colonial strategies in temperate fouling communities.Marine ecology progress series 13: 121-129.Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economiccosts associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52: 273288.Ruiz, G. M., Fofonoff, P. W., Carlton, J. T. and A. H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of Coastal MarineCommunities in North America: Apparent Patterns, Processes and Biases. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 31: 481-531.15
MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING Invasive species have been identified as a major threat to local and global ecology and economy. The annual cost of invasive species is estimated at 120 billion in the United States alone (Pimentel et al. 2005). The Nature Conservancy estimates that invasive species have contributed to the decline of 42%
invasive species. Report Invasive Species. One of the keys for a rapid response to invasive species is the early identification of new occurrences. Please report . occurrences of invasive species in MN to the following: “Arrest the Pest” at: 888-545-6684. Please call to report suspicious pest species arriving on plants or
Staggering Impacts of Invasive Species Economic: The economic impact caused by all invasive species in the U.S. is estimated at over 137 billion per year. Forests that are damaged by invasive species will yield far fewer goods and services (e.g., timber, recreation, wildlife). The cost of managing invasive species is very high.
Saskatchewan Invasive Plant Species Identification Guide 1 Introduction The inspiration to develop a province-wide guide to invasive species was originally provided by The Frenchman Wood River Weed Management Area (Julie McKenzie), Grasslands National Park, and other collaborators with the publication of Invasive Plant Species Guide for Southern
Invasive Species Best Management Practices Publication 756 . FHWA Policy . The . FHWA Policy Statement on Invasive Alien Species, dated April 22, 1999, overviews the federal efforts, including the Department of Transportation(DOT), to prevent and control the introduction of invasive
THE HARBOR Paradise Bay, sometimes known as Beaver Harbor, St. James Harbor or simply "The Harbor," is a remarkable example of a natural, sheltered harbor. It is extremely popular with boaters, as is evidenced by the many public and private docks that dot its shores, as well as the many boats that pepper its waters throughout the summer months.
Opportunity in Change: Preparing Boston for Leader Transitions and New Models of Nonprofit Leadership, 2017. 6 Boston Indicators, The Boston Foundation, UMass Boston, and the UMass Donahue Institute. Changing Faces of Greater Boston, 2019. letter from yw boston's beth chandler 6 7 Letter from the boston foundation's jennifer w. aronson
by these species . The transfer of marine alien species involves a variety of vectors and pathways, such as live food and aquaria, ballast water discharge and hull fouling or biofouling of ships, and species or associated species farmed in aquaculture facilities . In marine ecosystems, alien species may become invasive and displace native .
This manual explains how to use the API (application programming interface) functions, so that you can develop your own programs to collect and analyze data from the oscilloscope. The information in this manual applies to the following oscilloscopes: PicoScope 5242A PicoScope 5243A PicoScope 5244A PicoScope 5442A PicoScope 5443A PicoScope 5444A The A models are high speed portable .
