Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Location of the modular reef.

Modular reef was deployed subtidally in 7 m depth at Steamer Rock in the Rappahannock River, Virginia in October 2000 and sampled in late May 2005.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Schematic design of a single module.

Total surface area of each module was 74.17 m2, with 3.11 m2 each on the Top and Bottom faces, 2.89 m2 on the Side faces, and 5.73 m2 on the Hole faces. Five modules were stacked to comprise one modular reef. Schematic was based on dimensions provided by Retired Naval Captain Robert Jensen (deceased) and McLean Construction Company.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Top three modules of the modular reef that were sampled and immediately returned to the same location.

Individuals in the photo are, from left to right, Captain R. Jensen, R. Lipcius, and K. Knick. Photo by L. Latane.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Characteristics of the five potential cohort structures for eastern oyster examined with the R package mixtools.

There were four year classes with either one or two cohorts, except in 2003 when spatfall and oyster abundance were too low to distinguish more than one cohort. Nominal = starting values entered into mixtools for mean size of each cohort; μ, σ and proportion = estimates of cohort mean size, standard deviation, and proportion of the population in each cohort generated by mixtools.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 4.

Top layer of one module.

Visible are oyster clusters, hooked mussels and redbeard sponges Clathria prolifera, which are characteristic of a healthy subtidal oyster reef. Inset: closeup of a large, live eastern oyster of approximately 130 mm shell height.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Results of the AIC analysis for live oyster density, mussel density, and oyster biomass m-2.

In all three cases, the best-fitting model provided a significantly better fit than all other models (Log-likelihood X2 test, p < 0.0001).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 5.

Live oyster density and mussel density.

Density m-2 by face of the modular reef.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 3.

Live oyster and mussel density standardized to (i) surface area of each face (density m-2 surface area, (ii) density m-2 river bottom on each module, which is a product of the density m-2 surface area and total surface area per face on a module, and (iii) density m-2 river bottom on the five-module modular reef.

Total surface area of each module was 14.84 m2, with 3.11 m2 each on the Top and Bottom faces, 2.89 m2 on the Side faces, and 5.73 m2 on the Hole faces.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Live oyster density, standardized to density m-2 river bottom on the five-module modular reef, for the typical categories in oyster fisheries.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 6.

Relationship between live mussel density and oyster density.

The curve is sigmoid and statistically significant (Nonlinear least squares regression, SigmaPlot 13, p < 0.0001).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 5.

Results of the AIC analysis for size structure of live oysters using the only two realistic models, both with four year classes, and one with five and the other with six cohorts.

The best-fitting model with six cohorts provided a significantly better fit (Log-likelihood X2 test, p < 0.0001).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 7.

Size frequency of live (a) and dead (b) oysters on the modular reef.

The cohorts were distinguished using the R package mixtools. Cohort parameters are in Table 1.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Size frequency of live (a) and dead (b) mussels on the modular reef.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Live oyster DM as a function of SH.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Live oyster biomass, as dry mass (DM), by face of the modular reef.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 6.

Oyster biomass, as dry mass (DM), by module-face stratum combination.

More »

Table 6 Expand