Lindeman and Snyder: Nearshore hardbottom fishes of soutfieast Florida 



521 



Carlin Park EIS. In the summer of 1998, three years 

 after the burial, construction of approximately 1.6 

 ha of mitigation reefs began. If constructed before 

 burial and at similar depths, mitigation reefs may 

 have provided a refuge for a sizeable fraction of the 

 thousands of displaced fishes during the burial of the 

 hardbottom reef, as well as thousands of subsequent 

 new recruits. Even with prompt construction of arti- 

 ficial reefs, many factors can limit the net produc- 

 tion of biomass (Grossman et al., 1997). Some bur- 

 ied outcroppings were uncovered because of erosion 

 of the project fill. However, structural support for 

 two years of larval recruitment, shelter from post- 

 settlement predation, and food for growth, were prob- 

 ably eliminated at the hardbottom burial site. 



Nearshore hardbottom areas, such as Carlin Park, 

 can be exposed to extended periods of wave energy 

 and turbidity, particularly during winter months. 

 However, conditions in winter do not dilute the po- 

 tential significance of artificial burial during the 

 spring and summer months. These are the periods 

 of peak usage of hardbottom habitats by newly settled 

 and juvenile stages of fishes. In the absence of dredg- 

 ing, nearshore areas typically show high reef expo- 

 sures and reductions in physiological stressors dur- 

 ing the spring-summer recruitment window. Elimi- 

 nation of this recruitment window by habitat burial 

 for one or more years, regardless of winter dynam- 

 ics, may substantially degrade the value of the pri- 

 mary natural nursery habitats along the windward 

 shorelines of Florida's east coast. The above reasons 

 suggest a risk-averse approach to hardbottom burial, 

 as previously suggested for invertebrate fauna 

 (Nelson, 1989). 



The cumulative effects on fishes of repeated burial 

 of nearshore habitats and other byproducts of these 

 projects remain unknown. Cascading disturbances 

 with ecosystem-scale effects can be hypothesized for 

 a number of cumulative anthropogenic modifications 

 in south Florida (e.g. Butler et al., 1995; Ault et al., 

 1998). Habitats affected by dredging or filling can 

 show effects over temporal and spatial scales that 

 are rarely considered (Vestal and Rieser. 1995; 

 Lindeman, 1997b). For example, chronically elevated 

 turbidities could lead to declines in primary produc- 

 tion for frequently dredged areas of the southeast 

 Florida shelf. Conclusive statements on the cumula- 

 tive effects of large-scale dredging upon fishes will 

 ultimately depend on the correlation of variations in 

 early survival with adult population sizes, a rarely 

 achieved task, even when effects may be substantial 

 (Osenberg and Schmitt, 1996). However, the current 

 absence of basic information on both short- and long- 

 term scales can also be treated as an opportunity. 

 Large dredge projects affecting midshelf and near- 



shore habitats will continue along the southeast 

 Florida shelf at one- or two-year intervals. Basic 

 questions on dredge-and-fill effects upon habitat use, 

 predation, and growth, await study within a diverse 

 assemblage of nearshore fishes. 



Acknowledgments 



J. Ault, J. Bohnsack, G. Dennis, G. Gilmore, P. Glynn, 

 M. Harwell, and H. Wanless provided substantial 

 review comments. Several anonymous reviewers 

 were also very helpful. Conversations with the late 

 David Kirtley on sabellariid reefs were consistently 

 valuable. The assistance of these agency personnel 

 is acknowledged: P. Davis, D. Ferrill, J. Iliff A. Mager, 

 and C. Sultzman. Assistance was also provided by J. 

 Gonzalez, B. Hartig, R. Hudson, C. Leyendecker, M. 

 Perry, R. Pugliese, M. Ridler, P. Sale, E. Schoppaul, 

 J. Serafy, A. Stone, K. Snyder, G. Waugh, and D. 

 Wilder. Funding was provided by the Elizabeth 

 Ordway Dunn Foundation, the American Littoral 

 Society, Coastal Research and Education, Inc., the 

 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the 

 Dorr Foundation. 



Literature cited 



ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers). 



1996. Coast of Florida erosion and storm effects study: re- 

 gion III with final environmental impact statement. 

 ACOE Tech. Rep. Jacksonville District. Three volumes and 

 appendices A-I. 

 Ault, J. S., J. A. Bohnsack, and G. Meester. 



1998. A retrospective 1 1979-19961 multispecies assessment 

 of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fish. Bull. 

 96(31:395-414. 

 Bray, J. R., and J. T. Curtis. 



1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of 

 southern Wisconsin. Ecol. IMonogr 27:32.5-349. 

 Briggs, J. C. 



1974. Marine zoogeography. McGraw-Hill. New York, >A', 

 475 p. 

 Butler rV, M. J., J. H. Hunt, W. F. Herrnkind, 



M. J. Childress, R. Bertelsen, W. Sharp, T. Matthews, 

 J. M. Field, and H. G. Marshall. 



1995. Cascading disturbances in Florida Bay. U.S.A.: 

 cyanobactena blooms, sponge mortality, and implications 

 for juvenile spiny lobsters Panulirus argus. Mar. Ecol. 

 Prog. Ser 129:119-125. 

 Chiappone, M., and K. M. Sullivan. 



1994. Ecological structure and dynamics of nearshore hard- 

 bottom communities in the Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

 .54(31:747-756. 

 CuUiton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, 



D. G. Remer, C. M. Blackwell, and J. J. McDonough. 

 1990. Fifty years of population change along the nation's 

 coasts, 1960-2010. Second Rep. Coastal Trends Series. 

 Strat. Assess. Branch. NOAA. 41 p. 



