CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Marine and coastal ecosystemsAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsCoastal and Marine Management

Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Restoration Activities on Water Quality in Tampa Bay, Florida

Open access
Beck, Marcus W., Sherwood, Edward T., Henkel, Jessica Renee, Dorans, Kirsten, Ireland, Kathryn, Varela, Patricia·2019·Estuaries and Coasts
DOI 10.1007/s12237-019-00619-wPMC PMC6919555
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Habitat and water quality restoration projects are commonly used to enhance coastal resources or mitigate negative impacts of water quality stressors. Significant resources have been expended for restoration projects, yet much less attention has focused on evaluating broad regional outcomes beyond site-specific assessments. This study presents an empirical framework to evaluate multiple datasets in the Tampa Bay area (Florida, USA) to identify 1) the types of restoration projects that have produced the greatest improvements in water quality, and 2) over which time frames different projects may produce water quality benefits. Information on the location and date of completion of 887 restoration projects from 1971 to 2017 were spatially and temporally matched with water quality records at each of 45 long-term monitoring stations in Tampa Bay. The underlying assumption was that the developed framework could identify differences in water quality changes between types of restoration projects based on aggregate estimates of chlorophyll-a concentrations before and after the completion of one to many projects. Water infrastructure projects to control point source nutrient loading into the Bay were associated with the highest likelihood of chlorophyll-a reduction, particularly for projects occurring prior to 1995. Habitat restoration projects were also associated with reductions in chlorophyll-a, although the likelihood of reductions from the cumulative effects of these projects were less than those from infrastructure improvements alone. The framework is sufficiently flexible for application to different spatiotemporal contexts and could be used to develop reasonable expectations for implementation of future water quality restoration activities throughout the Gulf of Mexico.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12237-019-00619-w

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive effects arising from multiple pathways have been observed in Tampa Bay, where watershed-scale nutrient management and local habitat protection and enhancement projects aided seagrass recovery.

    “Positive effects arising from multiple pathways have been observed in Tampa Bay, Florida, where watershed-scale nutrient management and local habitat protection and enhancement projects aided seagrass recovery (Beck et al. 2019).”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Beck et al. 2019

    The Introduction reports seagrass recovery in Tampa Bay and says reduced nutrient loading and improved water clarity preceded it. The Discussion links habitat protection to reductions in chlorophyll-a, but says habitat enhancement was not strongly associated with baywide water-quality improvements. The paper does not establish that habitat protection and enhancement projects aided seagrass recovery. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Several studies have described landscape-scale effects of restorative actions at multiple sites.

    “Several studies have described similar landscape-scale effects of restorative actions at multiple sites (eg Diefenderfer et al. 2016; Beck et al. 2019)”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Beck et al. 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Alfredo, K.A., and T.A. Russo. 2017. Urban, agricultural, and environ- mental protection practices for sustainable water quality. WIREs Water 4 (5): e1229. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1229. · DOI
  2. Baird, R.C. 2005. On sustainability, estuaries, and ecosytem restoration: The art of the practical. Restoration Ecology 13 (1): 154-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00019.x. · DOI
  3. Bayraktarov, E., M.I. Saunders, S. Abdullah, M. Mills, J. Beher, H.P. Possingham, P.J. Mumby, and C.E. Lovelock. 2016. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications 26 (4): 1055-1074. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1077. · DOI
  4. Beck, M.W., and J.D. Hagy III. 2015. Adaptation of a weighted regres- sion approach to evaluate water quality trends in an estuary. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 20 (6): 637-655. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9452-8. · DOI
  5. Beck, M.W., J.D. Hagy III, and C. Le. 2018. Quantifying seagrass light requirements using an algorithm to spatially resolve depth of colo- nization. Estuaries and Coasts 41 (2): 592-610. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12237-017-0287-1. · DOI
  6. Beyer, J., H.C. Trannum, T. Bakke, P.V. Hodson, and T.K. Collier. 2016. Environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 110 (1): 28-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2016.06.027. · DOI
  7. Borja, Á., D.M. Dauer, M. Elliott, and C.A. Simenstad. 2010. Median- and long-term recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems: Patterns, rates and restoration effectiveness. Estuaries and Coasts 33 (6): 1249-1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-010-9347-5. · DOI
  8. Borja, Á., G. Chust, J. G. Rodríguez, J. Bald, M. J. Belzunce-Segarra, J. Franco, J. M. Garmendia, et al. 2016. 'The past is the future of the present': Learning from long-time series of marine monitoring. Science of the Total Environment 566-567. Elsevier B.V.: 698- 711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.111. · DOI
  9. Comp, G. S. 1985. A survey of the distribution and migration of the fishes in Tampa Bay. In Proceedings, Tampa Bay area scientific informa- tion symposium, May 1982, ed.
  10. Curriero, F.C. 2006. On the use of non-Euclidean distance measures in geostatistics. Mathematical Geology 38 (8): 907-926. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11004-006-9055-7. · DOI
  11. Diefenderfer, H.L., K.L. Sobocinski, R.M. Thom, C.W. May, A.B. Borde, S.L. Southard, J. Vavrinec, and N.K. Sather. 2009. Multiscale anal- ysis of restoration priorities for marine shoreline planning. Environmental Management 44 (4): 712-733. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00267-009-9298-4. · DOI
  12. Diefenderfer, H.L., R.M. Thom, G.E. Johnson, J.R. Skalski, K.A. Vogt, B.D. Ebberts, G.C. Roegner, and E.M. Dawley. 2011. A levels-of- evidence approach for assessing cumulative ecosystem response to estuary and river restoration programs. Ecological Restoration 29 (1-2): 111-132. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.29.1-2.111. · DOI
  13. Enwright, N.M., K.T. Griffith, and M.J. Osland. 2016. Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea- level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14 (6): 307- 316. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1282. · DOI
  14. Gardner, B., P.J. Sullivan, and A.J. Lembo. 2011. Predicting stream tem- peratures: Geostatistical model comparison using alternative dis- tance measures. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60 (3): 344-351. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-025. · DOI
  15. Greening, H.S., and A. Janicki. 2006. Toward reversal of eutrophic con- ditions in a subtrophical estuary: Water quality and seagrass re- sponse to nitrogen loading reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Environmental Management 38 (2): 163-178.
  16. Greening, H.S., P. Doering, and C. Corbett. 2006. Hurricane impacts on coastal ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 29 (6): 877-879. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02798646. · DOI
  17. Greening, H.S., A. Janicki, E.T. Sherwood, R. Pribble, and J.O.R. Johansson. 2014. Ecosystem responses to long-term nutrient man- agement in an urban estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 151: A1-A16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecss.2014.10.003. · DOI
  18. Gross, C., and J.D. Hagy III. 2017. Attributes of successful actions to restore lakes and estuaries degraded by nutrient pollution. Journal of Environmental Management 187: 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2016.11.018. · DOI
  19. Hassett, B., M. Palmer, E. Bernhardt, S. Smith, J. Carr, and D. Hart. 2005. Restoring watersheds project by project: Trends in Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 (5): 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0259: RWPBPT]2.0.CO;2. · DOI
  20. Hobbs, R.J., and J.A. Harris. 2001. Restoration ecology: Repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology 9 (2): 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001. 009002239.x. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Edited by S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark. Tampa, Florida, USA: 2 nd Tampa Bay BASIS Proceedings: 157-176. https://www.tbeptech. org/BASIS/BASIS2/BASIS2.pdf. (Accessed June 2019).
  22. Johansson, J. O. R., and R. R. Lewis III. 1992. Recent improvements in water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, a highly impacted subdivision of Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Marine Coastal Eutrophication. Proceedings of an International Conference, Bologna, Italy, 21-24 March 1990: 1199-1215.
  23. Lewis, R.R., P.A. Clark, W.K. Fehring, H.S. Greening, R.O. Johansson, and R.T. Paul. 1998. The rehabilitation of Tampa Bay Estuary, Florida, USA, as an example of successful integrated coastal man- agement. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37 (8-12): 468-473. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00139-3. · DOI
  24. Liang, D., L.A. Harris, J.M. Testa, V. Lyubchich, and S. Filoso. 2019. Detection of the effects of stormwater control measures in streams using a Bayesian BACI power analysis. Science of the Total Environment 661: 386-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2019.01.125. · DOI
  25. Lombardo, R., and R. R. Lewis III. 1985. A review of commercial fish- eries data: Tampa Bay, Florida. In Proceedings, Tampa Bay area scientific information symposium, May 1982, ed.
  26. Meals, D.W., S.A. Dressing, and T.E. Davenport. 2010. Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 39 (1): 85-96. https://doi.org/10.2134/ jeq2009.0108. · DOI
  27. Morrison, G., E.T. Sherwood, R. Boler, and J. Barron. 2006. Variations in water clarity and chlorophylla in Tampa Bay, Florida, in response to annual rainfall, 1985-2004. Estuaries and Coasts 29 (6): 926-931.
  28. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2017. Effective monitoring to evaluate ecological restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23476. · DOI
  29. Neckles, H.A., M. Dionne, D.M. Burdick, C.T. Roman, R. Buchsbaum, and E. Hutchins. 2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal resto- ration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restoration Ecology 10 (3): 556-563. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X. 2002.02033.x. NRDA (Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees). 2016. Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Final programmatic damage assessment and restoration plan and final programmatic environmental impact statement. http://www.gulfspillrestoration. noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan. (Accessed June, 2018). · DOI
  30. Rabotyagov, S.S., C.L. Kling, P.W. Gassman, N.N. Rabalais, and R.E. Turner. 2014. The economics of dead zones: Causes, impacts, policy challenges, and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 8 (1): 58-79. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ret024. · DOI
  31. Ruiz-Jaen, M.C., and T.M. Aide. 2005. Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13 (3): 569-577. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00072.x. · DOI
  32. Schiff, K., P.R. Trowbridge, E.T. Sherwood, P. Tango, and R.A. Batiuk. 2016. Regional monitoring programs in the United States: Synthesis of four case studies from Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts. Regional Studies in Marine Science 4: A1-A7. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rsma.2015.11.007. · DOI
  33. Sherwood, E.T., H.S. Greening, A.J. Janicki, and D.J. Karlen. 2016. Tampa Bay estuary: Monitoring long-term recovery through region- al partnerships. Regional Studies in Marine Science 4: 1-11. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2015.05.005. · DOI
  34. Sherwood, E.T., H.S. Greening, J.O.R. Johansson, K. Kaufman, and G. Raulerson. 2017. Tampa Bay (Florida, USA): Documenting seagrass recovery since the 1980s and reviewing the benefits. Southeastern Geographer 57 (3): 294-319. https://doi.org/10. 1353/sgo.2017.0026. · DOI
  35. Van Sickle, J., and C.B. Johnson. 2008. Parametric distance weighting of landscape influence on streams. Landscape Ecology 23 (4): 427- 438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9200-4. · DOI
  36. Thom, R.M., G.D. Williams, N.R. Evans, and E. Haas. 2011. Lower Columbia River and estuary habitat restoration prioritization frame- work. Ecological Restoration 29 (1-2): 94-110. https://doi.org/10. 3368/er.29.1-2. · DOI
  37. Wang, P.F., J. Martin, and G. Morrison. 1999. Water quality and eutro- phication in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49 (1): 1-20. · DOI
  38. Wortley, L., J.M. Hero, and M. Howes. 2013. Evaluating ecological res- toration success: A review of the literature. Restoration Ecology 21 (5): 537-543. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12028. · DOI
  39. Zedler, J.B. 2007. Success: An unclear, subjective descriptor of restora- tion outcomes. Ecological Restoration 25 (3): 162-168. https://doi. org/10.3368/er.25.3.162. Supplement Data analysis frameworks, analysis code, and manuscript source materials are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 3243530. An interactive application exploring results for Tampa Bay and individual Bay segments is available at https://shiny.tbeptech.org/ restoreTB/ind_eval.Rmd. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, M. W., Sherwood, E. T., Henkel, J. R., Dorans, K., Ireland, K., & Varela, P.
Affiliations
  • Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (US)
  • Tampa Bay Estuary Program (US)
  • Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Montana State University (US)
  • Geosyntec Consultants (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Beck, Marcus W.
  • Sherwood, Edward T.
  • Henkel, Jessica Renee
  • Dorans, Kirsten
  • Ireland, Kathryn
  • Varela, Patricia
ORCID
Venue
Estuaries and Coasts
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-08-05
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
1774-1791
ISSN
  • 1559-2723 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-2731
DOI
10.1007/s12237-019-00619-w
PMC
PMC6919555
OpenAlex
W2966765703
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Estuaries and Coasts (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Gulf Research Program
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and coastal ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
Keywords
water remediation, cumulative effects, chlorophyll a, Tampa Bay, habitat restoration, water infrastructure, nutrient loading, eutrophication, long-term monitoring, restoration project evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review