The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California: An Estuarine Profile

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7. (Continued) Organ~srn - Pre- 1980 (excluding Hosrner Hosrner 1977) 1977 Rehse Gr~swold 1981 1985 Dexter 1985 BIVALVE MOLLUSCS (Conl~nued) Tagelus calffornranus Tagelus subteres Tellrna carpenterr Tresus nuttallf Musculus senhousef Spfsula planulata Salen rosaceus GASTROPOD MOLLUSCS Acteocrna faculta Aplysra cal~fornrca Assfmfnea calrfornfca Bulla gouldlana Cerrthrdea calffornrca Creprdula fornrcata Melampus olivaceus Nassarius fossa tus Nassarius tegula Navanax inerrnis Olivella ba tica Olivella biplica ta Polinices lewisii Crepidula onyx Collisella lima tula Farnincea vesicula Serpulorbia scuamigeris Acfeccina culcitelfa DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS Callianassa californiensis Callianassa gigas Cancer sp. Emerita analoga Hemigrapsus oregonensis Losorhynchus crispatus Pachygrapsus crassipes Pinnixa franciscana Porfunas xantusi Scleroplax granulata Speocarcinus californiensis Uca crenulata Upogebia sp. Callianassa a ffinis Cancer antennarius Cancer productus Spironfocaris palpator Pagurus niritusculus Pagurus samuelis ClRRlPED CRUSTACEANS Balanus glandula Balanus amphitrite ISOPOD CRUSTACEANS Excirolana chllton~ AMPHIPOD CRUSTACEANS Eohaustorfus wash~ngfonranus Jassa falcata Ampithoe plurnosa (continued) 39
Pre- 1980 (excluding Hosrner Rehse Griswolcl Dexter Hosmer 1977) 1977 1981 1985 1985 CNlDARlA (COELENTERATES) P~onrila kailrber! Coryrnorpha pairnn PLATYHELMINPtiES Nemcrf~a spp Sryiochus sp Turbcllarra spp WEMlCHOROATA Saccoqiossus sp PHORON113A Plrotants drch~tocla x x x x x In her studres of Iittleneck clams, Srn~th (1974) while C g~gas appears lo be controlled by corlcluded that size and clensrty ~r~creased wcth c~mpetitfve ~nteraction with the other two species tncreaslng t~ifal depth She found average due to broad overlap in substrate and food dttnsrtles us O?rgh as 207i0 25 mh'tn the subtrdal explo~tatlon areas cornpared to 201025 rn" In the irltert~dal sotre Shrp cited sed~rnenl grain sve, ternperattire. salinrly dr~ratrnrl of feeding trrne, and probability of Peterson (1975) took a more general approdch r~rodat~oii as factors aflec;titig survlvorsiitp of lhls to the study of the benthos at P~juana Estuary and 2r)eclps Increased food ava~lab~l~ty and substrate compared the~r interspecifrc relatrorlships and stab~irty are also assocrated with deefter water community stabrirty w~th those at Mugu Ldgoon Calrfornta. 300 km to the north Compdrlng the subtidal, sandy bottom habitats of the two area:; he Ntesen j 1969) saf?lllic?d areas near the mouth of found that the dotninant macroinvertebrates each Trjuano Estridry to characterrze the sand dollar occupied a characteristic depth within the (Dcndraster ~?xcenirrcus) populat~on Oensit~es at sediments Sand dollars occupied the top few that tfme ranqcd from 60m2S0.'rn2 with a mean of centrmeters (Frgure 38) and each had most of its 170/m.Y(n lil) Th~s species became (ocaify test exposed to the water column Littieneck clams ~xtinct aftcx storms i.rrrd flootfrng in 1978 lowered were found wrthrn thc top 6 crn Ghost shrirnp and water salin~tics lts inahil~ty to reestablish appears its obligate cornnas.risal, false mya, occurred lo bc rerated to rclcufrlng tow salrntties with [nore together at 0-55 crn There was some overlap wtth frccjuc!nt rrvcr and wastewater flows enterrng the the purple clam, wh~ch was found at 25-55 crrl estu;iry in rt?csrat year$ The Cal~fornia jackknife clan burrowed up to 60 cm deep Peterson attributed their vertical separation to cornpet~tion far space, because there The domlnani crcrstacoat~ in ttle esttlaf~ ihe ltttie segregatton In food utilizat~on All but one ghost shrfmp, was sttid~ecJ by Hoiinzlak (1977) were scjspensron feeders, thus. they used the same This species IS of partlcu!as interest because rt was food source, regardless of burial depth once ccrmrncrerally harvested as fish bait Mosrner ~nvestig;itecf its rijrnp&i:fv~ ;:;kt'sc:ia;ss with two syrnpatric burrowing shrlrnp of the same Tyuana Estuary and Mugu Lagoon had similar farntiy Calhanassa gigas and a Upogcbia species daminan! spectes, but densrtles and relatlve His work suggested that the distribution and abundances were very different (Table 8) The abundance of C calrfornrensis and Upogeb~a purple ctam and Californra jackknife ciam were spectes are determined by spec!ftc substrates, much mare abundant at Tljuana Estuary, whrch
Page 1 and 2: June 1986 I THE ECOLOGY OF TIJUANA
Page 3 and 4: The findings in this report are not
Page 5 and 6: CONVERSION TABLE Metric to U.S. Cus
Page 7 and 8: Page 4.5 Energy Flow ..............
Page 9 and 10: Number Page The channel fish cornrn
Page 11 and 12: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The California Sea
Page 13 and 14: Figure 1. Lacatlcrn of 71juana Estu
Page 15 and 16: Figure 3. Map6 of Tijuana Estuary s
Page 17 and 18: FI(I(uPc$ 4. Wei&rahOt@ patt@rns of
Page 19 and 20: also limitrng Hot, dry desert winds
Page 21 and 22: 2.3 LAND USE HlSPQWV Through exami!
Page 23 and 24: The nearby bridge remained, and ext
Page 25 and 26: flushing until mid-December 1984. E
Page 27 and 28: with seawater. Even in years with s
Page 29 and 30: flats ~n winter but not in midsumme
Page 31 and 32: Each "island" of higher topography
Page 33 and 34: The vegetation and soils of the upp
Page 35 and 36: populations (Massey 1979) The brrds
Page 37 and 38: c~n~entrations of insects, especial
Page 39 and 40: Frgufe 29. The Ifght-footed clapper
Page 41 and 42: Figure 30. During winter (above) th
Page 43 and 44: anlmal footprints, In the hardpan f
Page 45 and 46: Tijuana Estuary salt marsh Such exp
Page 47 and 48: Frgura 36 The etraracrel an& tidal
Page 49: ^_ _I __"___I _-a_. -- fable 7. Inv
Page 53 and 54: Table 8. Average density (number/m2
Page 55 and 56: changes in envlronment has not been
Page 57 and 58: was dominated by goby species, Cali
Page 59 and 60: compared the ,chthyoplankton commun
Page 61 and 62: Figure 43, Birds of the intertidal
Page 63 and 64: -" and that the community was compo
Page 65 and 66: Willet (1 73) i - Water Depth (cm)
Page 67 and 68: Table 14. Early information on dune
Page 69 and 70: Figure 48. Birds that nest on the s
Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 4 ECOSYSTEM FldNCTlONlNG St
Page 73 and 74: were no? irght-saturated untri expo
Page 75 and 76: Table 17. Conceptual model of chann
Page 77 and 78: Table 19. Net aboveground productiv
Page 79 and 80: _I___ I__-~--- 4.4.1 Nitragen Fluxe
Page 81 and 82: i i t 1 1 I Table 22. Standing crop
Page 83 and 84: calculated from chlorophyll a measu
Page 85 and 86: Dissolved Organic Biomass Carbon De
Page 87 and 88: CHAPTER 5 THE ROLE OF DISTURBANCES
Page 89 and 90: Table 25. Changes in elevation in t
Page 91 and 92: Table 26. Change in pickleweed cano
Page 93 and 94: Table 27. Occurrence (in circular 0
Page 95 and 96: perennials can survive long periods
Page 97 and 98: An experiment was designed to deter
Page 99 and 100: CHAPTER 6 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Page 101 and 102:
Closely associated with the researc
Page 103 and 104:
c. Dredging at Tijuana Estuary will
Page 105 and 106:
Table 30. Predicted impacts of redu
Page 107 and 108:
footed clapper rails; the picklewee
Page 109 and 110:
overwashas, and slabiiizatran rs rl
Page 112 and 113:
REFERENCES Allen, L.G. 1980. Struct
Page 114 and 115:
Minsky, D. 1984. California least t
Page 116:
30272 -101 REPORT WUMENTATION 1. RE
show all

The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California: An Estuarine Profile

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?