Seth Barker | Search USGS

USGS2005

Negative effects of commercial mussel dragging on eelgrass beds in Maine

A study by the US Geological Survey, the University of New Hampshire, and the Maine Department of Marine Resources showed that commercial mussel dragging poses a severe and long-lasting threat to eelgrass (Zostera marina). Dragging can damage large areas, with individual drag scars up to 79 acres in size found in Maine eelgrass beds. Dragging activity uproots eelgrass plants completely, removing leaves, rhizomes, and roots. Two independent methods were used to predict the rate of eelgrass recovery in heavily dragged areas. Under the best environmental conditions, complete revegetation of a dragged area would require an average of 11 years. Under conditions less favorable for eelgrass growth, such as reduced water quality, dragged areas could require more than 20 years to recover. Protection of eelgrass from commercial shellfish dragging will preserve important coastal habitat.

Maine↗

USGS2005

Disturbance of eelgrass Zostera marina by commercial mussel Mytilus edulis harvesting in Maine: Dragging impacts and habitat recovery

We studied the effects of commercial harvest of blue mussels Mytilus edulis on eelgrass Zostera marina L. in Maquoit Bay, Maine, USA, at a hierarchy of scales. We used aerial photography, underwater video, and eelgrass population- and shoot-based measurements to quantify dragging impacts within 4 sites that had been disturbed at different times over an approximate 7 yr interval, and to project eelgrass meadow recovery rates. Dragging had disturbed 10% of the eelgrass cover in Maquoit Bay, with dragged sites ranging from 3.4 to 31.8 ha in size. Dragging removed above- and belowground plant material from the majority of the bottom in the disturbed sites. One year following dragging, eelgrass shoot density, shoot height and total biomass of disturbed sites averaged respectively 2 to 3%, 46 to 61% and <1% that of the reference sites. Substantial differences in eelgrass biomass persisted between disturbed and reference sites up to 7 yr after dragging. Dragging did not affect physical characteristics of the sediment. The pattern and rate of eelgrass bed recovery depended strongly on initial dragging intensity; areas of relatively light dragging with many remnant eelgrass patches (i.e. patches that were missed by the mussel dredge) showed considerable revegetation in 1 yr. However, by developing recovery trajectories from measurements at sites disturbed in different years, we projected that it would require a mean of 10.6 yr for recovery of eelgrass shoot density within the areas of intense dragging characterizing most of the disturbed sites. A spatial simulation model based on measured rates of lateral patch-expansion (mean 12.5 cm yr -1 ) and new-patch recruitment (mean 0.19 patches m -2 yr -1 ) yielded a mean bed recovery time of 9 to 11 yr following dragging, depending on initial degree of plant removal. Model simulations suggested that with favorable environmental conditions, eelgrass beds might recover from dragging disturbance in 6 yr; conversely, recovery under conditions less conducive to eelgrass growth could require 20 yr or longer. This study shows that mussel dragging poses a severe threat to eelgrass in this region and that regulations to protect eelgrass from dragging impacts would maintain the integrity of a substantial amount of habitat.

Marine Ecology Progress Series↗