Potential for seagrass restoration in Galveston Bay, Texas

dc.acquisition-srcDownloaded from-Web of Scienceen_US
dc.call-noen_US
dc.contract-noen_US
dc.contributor.authorHammerstrom Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorSheridan Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcMahan Gen_US
dc.contributor.otherTexas Journal of Scienceen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-15T17:17:19Z
dc.date.available2010-02-15T17:17:19Z
dc.date.issued1998 Feben_US
dc.degreeen_US
dc.description35-50en_US
dc.description-otheren_US
dc.description.abstractSeagrass meadows were lost from West Bay, part of the Galveston Bay system, between 1956 and 1982 due apparently to acute and chronic effects of waterfront development and water quality degradation. Various transplanting methods and materials were used to determine whether Halodule wrightii and Ruppia maritima could be restored to the area since environmental conditions have improved. Plugs of Halodule in peat pots survived better than did bare root transplants. Faunal exclusion cages aided survival and growth of those transplants, but only when mesh size was small enough (< 3 cm) to block small fishes and decapods typical of West Bay that were observed to disturb transplants. Cages need to protect transplants 60-90 days to be effective. Enclosing propagules in cheesecloth bags may be more useful and less time-consuming than using plugs, more so for faster-growing Ruppia than for slower-growing Halodule. There were no indications that planting on 0.5 m vs. 1.0 m centers or in square vs. rectangular beds produced better survival. Halodule transplanted in peat pots on 0.5 m centers was able to survive over two years after removal of small mesh cages. Transplanting Halodule was effective only during April-August, but Ruppia grew quickly and produced seeds within 47 days after planting in September. Mixed transplants of Ruppia and Halodule could be advantageous, as the annual Ruppia is able to spread rapidly and stabilize a transplant site whereas the perennial Halodule spreads more slowly but becomes the dominant species over time. In the future, seagrasses can be transplanted successfully into western Galveston Bay if certain precautions are taken to insure survival and growthen_US
dc.description.urihttp://gbic.tamug.edu/request.htmen_US
dc.historyen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1969.3/23476
dc.latitudeen_US
dc.locationen_US
dc.longitudeen_US
dc.notesTimes Cited: 4ArticleEnglishHammerstrom, KS Carolina Dept Nat Resources, Marine Resources Res Inst, POB 12559, Charleston, SC 29442 USACited References Count: 17ZB843BOX 43151, LUBBOCK, TX 79409-3151 USALUBBOCKen_US
dc.placeen_US
dc.publisheren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries51122.00en_US
dc.relation.urien_US
dc.scaleen_US
dc.seriesen_US
dc.subjectSUBMERGED VEGETATIONen_US
dc.subjectECOLOGYen_US
dc.subjectestuariesen_US
dc.titlePotential for seagrass restoration in Galveston Bay, Texasen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
dc.universityen_US
dc.vol-issue50(1)en_US
Files