English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Restoration of the oyster Crassostrea virginica population in Chesapeake Bay is often advocated as an easy solution for controlling phytoplankton blooms. Even at their pre-colonial densi- ties, oysters are unlikely to have controlled blooms, despite the fact that sediment cores suggest that pre-colonial spring blooms were smaller than at present. Lack of access to all bay water and low springtime filtration rates would make it impossible for oysters to control the spring bloom and the resulting summer hypoxia. Previous studies have overestimated potential oyster filtration rates, because they extrapolated summer rates to spring conditions that are 20°C cooler. Previous studies have also assumed that oysters have access to all phytoplankton, without considering the spatial sep- aration. In Chesapeake Bay, oysters and the spring bloom are separated horizontally owing to the size of the bay and its small tidal amplitude. Indeed, a multi-species guild of suspension feeders now pre- sent in the bay should have a filtration capacity approaching that of pre-colonial oysters, but it does not control the bloom. Actual oyster filtration potential must be lower than many advocates of oyster restoration assume, and replenishing the bay with oysters is not the means of controlling blooms and hypoxia.

Limits to top-down control of phytoplankton by oysters in Chesapeake Bay