129 



One intriguing possibility that needs study is that the depth of 



eelgrass growth throughout the Bay may have declined slightly. If prior 



to urban and industrial inputs in Buzzards Bay, eelgrass grew 0.5 m 



deeper in each habitat throughout the region and was present in coves in 



which it is absent today, then total eelgrass area may have been 50 % 



greater than todays cover. This hypothesis is testable because changes 



iji eelgrass depth distribution and relative contribution of eelgrass to 

 in eelgr:\: 



primary production can be assessed by analyzing sediment cores. 



pri; ' : 



Eelgrass can sequester heavy metals in its leaf tissue, and it has 



been suggested that eelgrass be used as an indicator organism for this 



b ■:■■-:' 



type of pollution {Brix et al., 198'3) . 



Mitigation efforts 



In recent years there has been considerable effort to mitigate 

 eelgrass habitat loss by transplanting eelgrass into areas where it was 

 removed, or if that proves unfeasible, transplant it to other suitable 

 habitat (Boorman et al., 1978; Churchill et al., 1978; Fonseca et al., 

 1985; Goforth and Peeling, 1979; Kenworthy et al., 1980; Phillips, 1974, 

 Robilliard and Porter, 1976). There are several problems inherent in 

 mitigation efforts in general. First it may take many years for an 

 eelgrass community to fully recover after initial colonization or 

 transplantation. 



Often, coastal dredging increases depths to such an extant that 

 habitat area is permanently lost. In these cases, bare areas nearby may 

 be chosen as the site of transplantation. Because there may be 



