Sharks of Onslow County

Category: Marine Ecosystem

Blue Land Crabs Near Onslow County: What to Watch For and What Their Presence Could Change

The Hole at the Grass Line

At the soundside edge of Topsail Island, a hole in the ground is not unusual. Marsh grass gives way to higher soil, fiddler crabs disappear when footsteps approach, and small brown crabs move beneath boards, leaves, and anything else that holds a little shade. A burrow at the edge of a coastal yard may belong to an animal that has lived along this shore far longer than the yard has.

That is why a hole alone would be poor evidence of a blue land crab.

The animal itself would be harder to overlook. A mature blue land crab, Cardisoma guanhumi, can grow to nearly six inches across its shell, with legs that make it appear larger still. An adult male is often blue-gray and carries one powerful claw, but females may be pale gray or white, while younger crabs can be orange, brown, or purple. From a distance, the uneven claws can resemble those of a fiddler crab, except the entire animal has been enlarged to a scale unfamiliar in a Carolina backyard (Hostetler et al., 2025).

Until recently, it was also unfamiliar along this part of the coast. The blue land crab’s historically documented range in the continental United States followed the Gulf of Mexico and southern Florida, with Vero Beach long recognized as its northern Atlantic limit (Scott et al., 2023). Occasional South Carolina records began in 2008, followed by 53 verified sightings there during a concentrated period of public reporting in fall 2022 (Scott et al., 2023). North Carolina confirmed its first blue land crab in summer 2023. By August 2026, 23 sightings had been confirmed statewide and another 34 reports remained unverified. Two of the confirmed records this year came from Emerald Isle (NC DEQ, 2026).

Those numbers do not yet describe a population. They describe a question appearing in yards, along roads, and beside the marsh: whether a warm-water crab is occasionally reaching North Carolina or beginning to live here.

A Crab That Does Not Stay in One World

The blue land crab is neither a displaced Atlantic blue crab nor simply a giant fiddler. The shared color and oversized claw describe what it looks like, not its closest relatives. It belongs to Gecarcinidae, the land-crab family, whose members have moved much of adult life above the tide. Their gills still do the breathing, even in air, and those gills must remain damp. The crab can leave the water; it cannot leave water behind (Marin & Tiunov, 2023).

That need for moisture keeps the crab between two worlds. Adults may live above the reach of ordinary tides—in coastal forests, brushy ground, grasslands, drainage edges, and even yards—but they return to damp shelter when the day becomes hot or when a newly molted shell leaves them vulnerable. Many blue land crabs can live near one another without sharing that refuge; each normally keeps a burrow of its own (Herreid & Gifford, 1963; Moraes-Costa & Schwamborn, 2018).

That higher position separates the blue land crab from many crabs living in the flooded marsh below it, but not completely. Its life still returns to the estuary. After mating, a female carries hundreds of thousands of eggs beneath her abdomen and travels to salt or brackish water to release them (Hostetler et al., 2025). The larvae drift through several planktonic stages before settling and returning to land as small crabs. Warm water is particularly important during this development, while salinity determines which parts of an estuary can carry the larvae successfully (Costlow & Bookhout, 1968a, 1968b).

An adult can therefore live beneath shrubs beside a yard while its offspring begin among fishes and plankton. The species belongs to the coastal upland and the estuary at the same time, and that divided life helps explain how an animal tied to one burrow can appear far beyond the range where its adults were previously known.

How a Southern Crab Reached This Shore

Blue land crabs are not likely to have walked from Florida to the Carolinas. Adults forage close to their burrows and show strong attachment to a small home area. Females make longer reproductive movements toward water, but those are local journeys between upland burrows and larval-release sites rather than migrations along hundreds of miles of coastline (Moraes-Costa & Schwamborn, 2018).

Long-distance movement is more plausible during the larval stage. Once released, larvae spend weeks in coastal water before returning to land, allowing currents to carry them beyond the place where they hatched (Hostetler et al., 2023). A widening pattern of sightings from Florida through Georgia and South Carolina would be consistent with natural range expansion as warming water and milder cold periods make northern development and survival more possible (Costlow & Bookhout, 1968b; NC DEQ, 2026; Scott et al., 2023). Human transport, including movement with vessels or materials, remains another possibility because the present records do not yet reveal how the crabs arrived (NC DEQ, 2026).

Warmer conditions in Florida would not simply make the crabs decide to leave. The more relevant change would occur at the northern boundary, where conditions that once killed larvae or prevented overwintering may no longer do so as reliably (Costlow & Bookhout, 1968b). Warming can open habitat ahead of a species without pushing adults out of the habitat behind it.

It is tempting to imagine worsening conditions in Florida sending blue land crabs north, but that does not fit particularly well with how the adults live. Coastal development, altered groundwater, harvesting, and the loss of mangrove-edge habitat have reduced populations in parts of Puerto Rico and Brazil. When the ground around an adult’s burrow is destroyed, however, the crab may move only a short distance or disappear with the habitat. It does not begin a walk to North Carolina (Govender et al., 2008; Moraes-Costa & Schwamborn, 2018).

Development may matter after the much smaller, drifting stage has already reached a new shore. A canal edge, drainage ditch, watered lawn, or patch of coastal vegetation can offer the damp ground a young crab needs as it leaves the estuary. Human-altered places may therefore help connect suitable patches without being the reason the crab traveled north in the first place (Riascos et al., 2024).

So is the blue land crab native to North Carolina, or is it invasive? Neither label fits neatly yet. The species is native to warmer parts of the western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, including Florida, but North Carolina lies beyond its historically recognized Atlantic range in the United States. If larvae are reaching the Carolinas on coastal currents and surviving because conditions have become more favorable, then the crab’s natural range may be expanding. If crabs arrived with boats or transported materials, that would be an introduction. The sightings cannot yet tell us which occurred (Scott et al., 2023; NC DEQ, 2026).

Either way, arrival alone does not make a species invasive. The blue land crab would have to establish a reproducing population, continue spreading, and cause ecological or economic harm. North Carolina has confirmed crabs, but it does not yet have evidence of an established, harmful population (NC DEQ, 2026).

Emerald Isle Is Not Far Away

There were two confirmed blue land crab sightings in Emerald Isle this year, out of 23 confirmed cases across North Carolina (NC DEQ, 2026). This is what makes the Emerald Isle records matter here. The confirmed crabs were not found along some distant part of the North Carolina coast. They were found on Bogue Banks, northeast of Onslow County and only several dozen coastal miles from North Topsail Beach.

Between Emerald Isle and Topsail are connected sounds, tidal creeks, inlets, marshes, developed islands, and the Intracoastal Waterway. A crab confirmed on Bogue Banks does not prove that one is already living around North Topsail, Surf City, or the soundside of Topsail Island. It does place the animal within a coastal landscape that continues toward all three.

That does not mean currents are carrying crabs neatly from Emerald Isle toward Topsail, and the statewide sightings should not be read as a marching line. Some animals may represent separate arrivals; others may have gone unnoticed for years. The map brings the question closer. Only repeated observations can show where the crab has actually found a place—and which members of the existing crab community are already there.

The Crabs Already Here

Onslow County’s marsh edge is not waiting empty for a land crab to arrive. Several native crabs divide the same transition from tidal creek to high ground, although each uses a somewhat different part of it.

Comparison of the blue land crab to other crabs seen in our Onslow County area. | Image credit: SC Department of Natural Resources

At low tide, the easiest to notice are often fiddlers. Atlantic marsh fiddler crabs, Minuca pugnax, favor muddier marsh sediment, while Atlantic sand fiddlers, Leptuca pugilator, are more common across sandy flats and the higher portions of the marsh. Red-jointed fiddler crabs, Minuca minax, appear where the water is fresher. Marsh and sand fiddlers have long been documented in North Carolina salt marshes, gathering into the familiar patches that vanish into small holes when a person approaches (O’Connor, 1993).

They sift algae, microbes, and bits of organic material from the surface, leaving tiny feeding marks across exposed sediment. Even a male carrying an oversized claw has a body only a fraction of the width of an adult blue land crab.

Closer to the cordgrass, purple marsh crabs, Sesarma reticulatum, move along muddy creek banks and feed heavily on the grass, including stems and tissues belowground. At ordinary numbers they are part of the marsh’s long-established community. Where their numbers become unusually high, their feeding can strip away vegetation and leave sediment exposed (Bertness et al., 2014; Wittyngham et al., 2024).

At the upper edge, the small brown crab beneath a board or patch of leaves may be a squareback marsh crab, Armases cinereum. Of the native crabs, it is the most likely to meet a blue land crab where marsh gives way to the yard. It moves above the high-water line, sometimes crossing lawns or climbing garage walls, and eats fallen leaves, living plants, and small invertebrates. Its menu is broad in much the same way as a blue land crab’s, although the squareback itself is far smaller (Buck et al., 2003).

Other familiar crabs belong to neighboring settings. Atlantic mud crabs such as Panopeus herbstii remain among oyster shells, rocks, and submerged structure, where their heavy claws open oysters, clams, barnacles, and snails. Ghost crabs, Ocypode quadrata, occupy the open beach and dune sand on the ocean side. Either may be close in geographic distance to a blue land crab, but neither uses the soundside grass-to-yard boundary in quite the same way.

Each of these crabs already belongs to a particular part of the shore. A blue land crab would not arrive in an empty niche, but it would not duplicate any one of them either. To see where the differences matter, we have to look below the opening.

The Architecture Beneath the Opening

For a burrowing crab, the tunnel is more than a hiding place. It is a shelter from heat and predators, a humid chamber that protects the gills, and a safe place to molt. Its shape reflects the problem the crab needs it to solve, which is why burrows built only a few yards apart can belong to very different lives.

A blue land crab begins on higher ground with a comparatively broad entrance, then turns downward toward moisture. There is no single blueprint hidden below it. Burrows examined with a fiber-optic camera in Puerto Rico included short passages that descended at a shallow angle, longer tunnels that leveled before dropping sharply, and deep curves resembling an inverted S. Forked and corkscrew forms occurred less often. The route varied with the site, but the essential destination was usually the same: a humid refuge at or near groundwater, occupied by one crab rather than a colony sharing one chamber (Moraes-Costa & Schwamborn, 2018; Sample & Albrecht, 2016).

The blue land crab’s burrow will begin their entrance with a steep angle that levels off until a sharp downward turn to reach the water table. | Image credit: Sample & Albrecht, 2016

An Atlantic sand fiddler builds at another scale and for another rhythm. Its narrow shaft descends through sand exposed between tides, and a deeper breeding burrow may extend farther than the temporary refuge used while feeding. Across a flat, many small entrances can stand close together because each belongs to a small crab defending little more than the ground immediately around it. Although the shafts provide shelter and moist air, they remain much narrower than the passage required by an adult blue land crab (Christy, 1982). A fiddler opening would therefore be a poor ready-made home for a mature Cardisoma.

A 3D cast and schematic show the burrow formation of an Atlantic fiddler crab. | Image Credit: di Virgilio & Riberio, 2013

The purple marsh crab offers a different contrast. Its burrows occupy muddy, rooted creek banks and can become part of a connected network with several openings. When those networks become dense, especially where vegetation has already thinned, excavation and cordgrass feeding can loosen the bank and make sediment easier for moving water to carry away (Bertness et al., 2014; Farron et al., 2020). A blue land crab generally begins above ordinary tidal flooding and maintains a more solitary route toward groundwater. Its burrow should not be assumed to undercut a creek bank in the same way simply because both animals dig.

A ghost crab may also leave one obvious opening and a mound of newly moved sand, but its address is usually the open ocean beach or foredune. Its sloping or curving refuge is built in loose, comparatively dry beach sand, not at the moist soundside boundary between marsh and yard.

Ghost crab burrow structure from a 3D cast on a sandy beach | Image credit: Shinoda et al., 2019

The squareback marsh crab makes an even clearer distinction. It commonly slips beneath leaves, logs, rocks, boards, and other cover at the upper marsh edge instead of constructing the large groundwater-reaching tunnel associated with an adult blue land crab. Mud crabs and Atlantic blue crabs do not make permanent terrestrial burrows at all. One uses submerged crevices; the other may bury itself temporarily in bottom sediment.

The squareback marsh crab may use rocks, leaves or other surface materials to hide beneath instead of a burrow. | Image credit: critterbliss, iNaturalist

Burrow reuse deserves equal care. Smaller blue land crabs have been found in openings much larger than their bodies, which is consistent with their moving into burrows abandoned by larger blue land crabs (Carmona-Suárez & Guerra-Castro, 2012). For a smaller crab, an empty tunnel would mean less digging, less time exposed aboveground, and immediate access to a refuge that already holds moisture. Those are likely advantages rather than benefits tested directly.

The other crabs along a Carolina shore do not appear to offer the same shortcut. Their shelters are too narrow, too low in the marsh, too dry, or not true burrows at all. Nothing currently shows that blue land crabs routinely take over and enlarge the burrows of another crab species.

The digging leaves more than a hole. Soil brought up from below is spread across the surface, while leaves, scraps of food, old molts, and waste may collect inside. In places where blue land crabs are established, the soil within their burrows differs from the ground beside them in its mixture of sand and silt, acidity, organic matter, and nutrients including nitrogen, magnesium, and potassium (Quintero-Torres et al., 2018).

The open tunnel also allows air and water to reach soil that had been sealed underground. Across many kinds of coastal crabs, burrowing tends to loosen sediment and change the chemical work carried out there by microbes. How much changes—and whether the effect helps or harms the plants above—depends upon the crab, the vegetation, and where the burrow sits (Rinehart et al., 2024).

Water salinity is shown in a burrowed marsh (a), a straight burrowed marsh (b), a sloped marsh (c ), and a marsh at the high tide stage and how salinity is distributed in the marsh as influenced by burrows. | Image credit: Yin et al., 2023

That does not mean each hole ventilates an entire marsh. Oxygen entering a tunnel may change only a thin layer of soil along its walls. Around fiddler burrows, that reach has been far smaller than the familiar phrase “aerates the soil” might suggest (Michaels & Zieman, 2013). A single high-ground blue land crab tunnel is not a new tidal creek either. Rain, groundwater, or an unusually high tide may enter it and change the wetness immediately around the opening, but blue land crab burrows have not been shown to redirect tidal flow through a maritime forest.

Roots present the same uncertainty. Digging can break fine roots and loosen the soil holding them, while the extra space and shifted nutrients around a tunnel may create new conditions for roots and soil life. Blue land crabs also clip and eat plants aboveground, so a damaged plant would not tell us whether feeding, digging, or both were responsible.

One occupied hole may change little beyond a small patch of ground. If the same digging were repeated across many burrows, those patches could begin to influence which plants take hold, how firmly their roots bind the edge, and how water moves through the soil. That possibility is one reason burrows are worth mapping. It is not evidence that those changes are already happening at North Carolina sighting sites.

At first, the tunnel keeps one crab alive. Only when that work is repeated across a place does it begin to become part of the landscape.

From the surface, however, most of that architecture remains hidden.

What a Burrow Can—and Cannot—Tell Us

A mature blue land crab may leave an opening three to five inches wide. Freshly excavated soil may collect around the entrance, and plant pieces or tracks may be visible nearby. These clues become more persuasive when the hole sits above normal tidal flooding in shaded, moist ground and a very large crab has been seen retreating into it (Hostetler et al., 2025).

It is still not an identification. A smaller blue land crab may occupy an older, larger burrow, while erosion can widen the entrance to a much smaller tunnel. Marsh soil also collapses, roots leave openings, rodents dig, and water continually reshapes the grass line. Size alone can mislead, particularly in a photograph with nothing nearby for scale.

The setting and the pattern offer better clues. Many small holes spread across exposed mud or sand point toward fiddlers. Several openings cut through a rooted creek bank fit purple marsh crabs. One hole high on the dry ocean beach is more likely a ghost crab’s. Squarebacks are often found beneath something rather than beside a large mound of freshly dug soil. The strongest match for the blue land crab would bring several details together: a broad opening on higher soundside ground, signs of recent digging, and a crab far larger than the native marsh species.

That is why a useful photograph includes more than the hole. The crab, entrance, moved soil, surrounding plants, nearby water, and something familiar for scale allow the scene to be read together. There is no need to dig, probe, or flood the tunnel. Without the animal, a burrow can identify a place worth watching, but not the species living beneath it.

What the New Crab Would Eat

The large claw may make a blue land crab look like a hunter arriving to eat every smaller crab in its path. Most of what it gathers, however, is plant material: fallen leaves, fruit, berries, flowers, tender shoots, grasses, and seeds. It may carry that food home and pull some of it underground. Insects, carrion, feces, and other animal matter add to the diet when available, and blue land crabs sometimes eat one another (Gifford, 1962; Herreid, 1963; Moraes-Costa & Schwamborn, 2018).

That does not place native crabs entirely off the menu. A blue land crab may seize a small animal it can catch, but regular hunting of fiddlers, squarebacks, or purple marsh crabs is unlikely to be its main influence. The more important changes would probably begin with the plants and fallen leaves it removes, the ground it excavates, and the space it keeps around its burrow.

The amount of competition would differ from crab to crab. Fiddlers graze the thin film of algae, microbes, and organic particles coating the marsh surface, so they share relatively little food with a crab gathering fruit and leaves above the high-tide line. Squareback and purple marsh crabs share more of that plant-based menu, although they forage at different scales and in different parts of the marsh. If blue land crabs remain, the strongest overlap may be over shaded ground, damp refuge, and nearby plant food rather than over a particular prey animal.

What Established Populations Tell Us

Sharing food and high ground does not make displacement inevitable. Where blue land crabs have lived for generations, other crabs continue to live beside them by using different levels of the shore. Along the Brazilian coast, for example, the mangrove crab, Ucides cordatus, digs into softer ground between the tides, while Cardisoma lives higher in firmer, sandier soil. Their ranges overlap without their burrows occupying precisely the same ground (Firmo et al., 2012).

North Carolina has a different community, but the same separation by water, soil, and elevation is already familiar here. The squareback comes closest to overlapping with a blue land crab at the upper edge. Even there, one defended Cardisoma burrow might cost a squareback a feeding spot without removing squarebacks from the wider marsh.

The first change people noticed might therefore be simpler than one crab replacing another: a much larger animal at the grass line, fresh soil beside an entrance, fallen fruit or leaves drawn toward it, and tender plants clipped within a short walk of the burrow.

That picture could change if the crabs became numerous. Many defended burrows would divide more of the narrow band of damp high ground, increasing competition for shelter and food. Their digging would repeat the small soil changes described above, while their feeding could influence which seeds and seedlings survive and how quickly fallen leaves disappear. Those broader forest effects are known across several land-crab species rather than from a newly established Cardisoma population, but they show why abundance matters more than the mere arrival of one large crab (Lindquist et al., 2009).

Predators would respond only if the crabs became dependable prey. Large birds and mammals eat blue land crabs within their established range, while eggs and larvae released into the estuary become food for aquatic animals (Firmo et al., 2012; Hostetler et al., 2025). One adult crossing a Carolina yard offers one unusual meal. A recurring population could give raccoons or coastal birds a reason to search the marsh edge and could place many larvae into the estuarine food web.

This is where two kinds of change can look like the same thing. Digging alters the ground directly, making the crab an ecosystem engineer (Rinehart et al., 2024). A trophic cascade would have to continue through feeding relationships: fewer surviving seedlings changing the vegetation, for example, or predators drawn to land crabs changing their pressure on other prey (Lindquist et al., 2009).

Blue land crabs are capable of beginning both pathways. What the North Carolina sightings cannot yet tell us is whether enough crabs are arriving, surviving, and reproducing for the work of individuals to become the work of a population.

When One Sighting Becomes a Place

One dated photograph gives the map a place. Another observation weeks or months later begins to show whether the crab stayed. As those records accumulate, they can reveal when the crabs are active, whether they appear after rain, which kinds of ground they use, and whether they return across seasons. Crabs of different sizes at one site may have survived across more than one year, while juveniles, egg-bearing females, or repeated movements toward the water would offer stronger evidence that the species is completing more of its life cycle here.

The same map can show where the larger ecological questions belong. One wandering adult does not tell us that native crabs are being displaced or that a trophic cascade has begun. Several occupied burrows, plant damage, younger crabs, and repeated sightings at the same place would give biologists a reason to compare its vegetation, soil, native crabs, and predators with nearby places where Cardisoma is absent.

Anyone who sees a possible blue land crab can photograph it from a safe distance and submit the image, date, and location through the Blue Land Crab Sightings reporting. A photograph showing the animal, its approximate scale, and the surrounding habitat is more useful than trying to catch or relocate it.

That distinction matters for anyone standing at the grass line. A three-inch hole is not an identification, clipped leaves are not proof of ecological harm, and a large crab is not automatically an invasive species. Each is a piece of context. Together, photographed and reported without catching or relocating the animal, those pieces can show whether North Carolina is receiving occasional southern visitors or adding a new resident to the narrow landscape between the forest and the sea.

The coast will answer that slowly, one place at a time.

References

Bertness, M. D., Brisson, C. P., Bevil, M. C., & Crotty, S. M. (2014). Herbivory drives the spread of salt marsh die-off. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e92916. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092916

Buck, T. L., Breed, G. A., Pennings, S. C., Chase, M. E., Zimmer, M., & Carefoot, T. H. (2003). Diet choice in an omnivorous salt-marsh crab: Different food types, body size, and habitat complexity. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 292(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-0981(03)00146-1

Carmona-Suárez, C. A., & Guerra-Castro, E. (2015). Comparison of three quick methods to estimate crab size in the land crabs <i>Cardisoma guanhumi</i> Latreille, 1825 and <i>Ucides cordatus</i> (Crustacea: Brachyura: Gecarcinidae and Ucididae). Revista de Biología Tropical, 60, 139. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v60i0.19854

Christy, J. H. (1982). Burrow structure and use in the sand fiddler crab, Uca pugilator (Bosc). Animal Behaviour, 30(3), 687-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3472(82)80139-5

Costlow, Jr., J. D., & Bookhout, C. G. (1968a). The complete larval development of the land-crab, Cardisoma guanhumi Latreille in the laboratory (Brachyura, Gecarcinidae). Crustaceana, 15(3), 259-270.

Costlow, Jr., J. D., & Bookhout, C. G. (1968b). The effect of environmental factors on development of the land-grab,cardisoma guanhumiLatreille. American Zoologist, 8(3), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/8.3.399

Farron, S., Hughes, Z., FitzGerald, D., & Strom, K. (2020). The impacts of bioturbation by common marsh crabs on sediment erodibility: A laboratory flume investigation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 238, 106710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106710

Firmo, A., Tognella, M. M., Silva, S. R., Barboza, R. R., & Alves, R. (2012). Capture and commercialization of blue land crabs (“guaiamum”) Cardisoma guanhumi (Lattreille, 1825) along the coast of Bahia state, Brazil: An ethnoecological approach. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-12

Gifford, C. A. (1962). Some observations on the general biology of the land crab, cardisoma guanhumi (Latreille), in South Florida. The Biological Bulletin, 123(1), 207-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/1539516

Govender, Y., Sabat, A. M., & Cuevas, E. (2008). Effects of land-use/land-cover changes on land crab,Cardisoma guanhumi, abundance in Puerto Rico. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 24(4), 417-423. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467408005130

Herreid, C. F. (1963). Observations on the feeding behavior of Cardisoma Guanhumi (Latreille) in southern Florida1). Crustaceana, 5(3), 176-180. https://doi.org/10.1163/156854063×00093

Herreid, C. F., & Gifford, C. A. (1963). The burrow habitat of the land crab, Cardisoma guanhumi (Latreille). Ecology, 44(4), 773-775. https://doi.org/10.2307/1933027

Hostetler, M. E., Mazzottii, F. J., & Taylor, A. K. (2025, October 28). Blue land crab (Cardisoma guanhumi) (WEC 30). Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS Extension. https://ask.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/UW013

Lindquist, E. S., Krauss, K. W., Green, P. T., O’Dowd, D. J., Sherman, P. M., & Smith, T. J. (2009). Land crabs as key drivers in tropical coastal forest recruitment. Biological Reviews, 84(2), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2008.00070.x

Marin, I. N., & Tiunov, A. V. (2023). Terrestrial crustaceans (Arthropoda, crustacea): Taxonomic diversity, terrestrial adaptations, and ecological functions. ZooKeys, 1169, 95-162. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1169.97812

Michaels, R. E., & Zieman, J. C. (2013). Fiddler crab (Uca spp.) burrows have little effect on surrounding sediment oxygen concentrations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 448, 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.06.020

Moraes-Costa, D., & Schwamborn, R. (2018). Site fidelity and population structure of blue land crabs (Cardisoma guanhumi Latreille, 1825) in a restricted-access mangrove area, analyzed using PIT tags. Helgoland Marine Research, 72(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10152-017-0504-0

NC Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2026, August 26). Please report blue land crab sightings. https://www.deq.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2026/08/26/please-report-blue-land-crab-sightings

O’Connor, N. (1993). Settlement and recruitment of the fiddler crabs Uca pugnax and U. pugilator in a North Carolina, USA; salt marsh. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 93, 227-234. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps093227

Quintero-Torres, E., Chacón, N., & López-Sánchez, B. (2018). The ecosystem engineering role of the neotropical crab Cardisoma guanhumi on mangrove soil properties. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 26(5), 993-1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9618-7

Riascos, J. M., Obonaga, L. D., & Ramos, J. (2024). Is the threatened land crab Cardisoma guanhumi conquering human‐dominated systems? Ecology and Evolution, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10737

Rinehart, S. A., Dybiec, J. M., Walker, J. B., Simpson, L., & Cherry, J. A. (2024). Effects of burrowing crabs on coastal sediments and their functions: A systematic meta‐analysis. Ecosphere, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4927

Sample, S., & Albrecht, M. (2016). Determination of the burrow shapes of Cardisoma guanhumi on Vieques, Puerto Rico. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine, 4(2), 94-97. https://doi.org/10.12980/jclm.4.2016j5-245

Scott, E., Kendrick, M., Kingsley-Smith, P., James, M., Lemeris, J., Weeks, E., & Sasson, D. (2023). Using public sightings to document the widespread distribution of the non-endemic blue land crab, Cardisoma guanhumi, in South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1656/058.022.0403

Wittyngham, S. S., Johnson, D. S., Chen, Y., & Kirwan, M. L. (2024). A grazing crab drives saltmarsh carbon storage and recovery. Ecology, 105(9). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.4385

September 5, 2026
Mapping the Invisible Structure: Fish on the Move in the Surf Zone

Somewhere between watching my daughter catch waves and standing in the surf zone waiting for the next decent one to come through, I noticed the fish.

They were small—anchovy-like from where I stood, although the glare on the water and the constant movement made identification nearly impossible. What caught my attention wasn’t what they were. It was the fish on the move beside us, all traveling in the same narrow line for almost four hours.

They were moving parallel to the beach in a line perhaps four inches wide, almost exactly where the waves were breaking.

A wave would come through hard enough to knock us backward. Water rushed toward shore and then pulled against our legs as it returned. My daughter and I moved with it.

The fish didn’t seem to.

The line continued.

A little farther offshore was another line of larger fish. They were less tightly packed, but moving along the same general stretch of coast. Beyond them, one or two long, slender fish held near my daughter’s board. We couldn’t identify them with certainty, although their shape was consistent with one of our larger needlefishes, possibly a houndfish. They didn’t appear to be simply passing through. They would dart toward the smaller fish, take one, and return.

Farther still, just beyond the breakers, something much larger came partly out of the water while apparently feeding. It happened too quickly to tell whether it was a shark, large fish, or something else.

Then the line of little fishes passing in front of me suddenly broke.

Fish scattered and began leaping from the water, fleeing something I couldn’t see. Almost immediately, there seemed to be another pursuit underway.

That seemed like a good time for us to take a short break on the beach.

We had been in the water for nearly four hours by then, and those little fish had been passing us for much of it.

It was only after watching them for so long that the strange part became obvious.

The water looked like one place. We had been watching fish on the move through the surf zone all afternoon.

The fish were behaving as though it wasn’t.

The Line That Didn’t End

Standing in the surf, it is easy to think of the shallow water as a temporary place.

Waves arrive. Water runs up the beach and retreats. Sand shifts beneath your feet. A few yards offshore, another wave rises over a bar and breaks. Everything seems to be moving too much for anything resembling a pathway to exist.

To a fish, however, that same water contains structure.

Even water only a few inches or a foot deep can hold its own patterns. Small runnels form behind sandbars, wave energy changes as water crosses them, and fishes can move parallel to shore through these shallow strips rather than spreading evenly across the surf. The exact species may change from beach to beach, but the pattern is not unusual: fishes sort themselves through very small differences in shallow-water habitat (Layman, 2000).

Look closely and the tiny fish begin to appear—a narrow line moving through water that, at first glance, looks almost empty. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

Late summer can make those patterns especially noticeable. Along our part of the coast, both the number of fish and the variety of species using the surf climb through the warm months, reaching their highest levels from June through August (North Carolina Sea Grant, 2019).

So the little fish moving past our legs weren’t occupying empty water between the beach and the ocean.

They were inside habitat. And habitat has shape.

Mapping the Invisible Structure

Most of that shape disappears when we look across the water from shore.

We can see the obvious pieces. Waves often reveal where a sandbar rises toward the surface. Darker water may hint at a trough. A break in the waves can sometimes betray a deeper channel. Farther out, the water deepens into another shade.

For a small fish, those changes don’t have to be dramatic to matter.

A few inches of depth can change how quickly the water moves, how much wave energy reaches a spot, what food passes through and which animals can follow. Temperature and wave conditions add another layer. Together, they turn what looks like one open stretch of surf into a collection of much smaller usable spaces (Olds et al., 2018).

The difference between standing here and standing three feet farther out may barely register to us.

To a fish only a few inches long, it can mean different water.

That becomes easier to picture when we pull back and look at the coast beneath us.

Off Onslow County, the continental shelf doesn’t plunge quickly into deep water. It stretches gradually away from shore across a broad, shallow part of Onslow Bay. Near the beach, the bottom is mostly sand, with shell fragments and coarser material mixed through some areas. Closer to shore, that otherwise gentle slope is interrupted again and again by the smaller features we actually feel beneath our feet—bars, dips, troughs and runnels that waves and currents continually reshape (North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel, 2026; Tyler & Kowalewski, 2018).

Along the Onslow County coast, the shallow sandy bottom rises and falls in subtle bars, troughs, and runnels that can shape how fish use the surf zone. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

To us, one of those dips may simply feel like the water suddenly came a little higher on our bodies.

For a fish only a few inches tall, it can be a different piece of the landscape.

That doesn’t mean the little school we watched was tracing a particular underwater trough. We couldn’t see the bottom well enough to know that.

But their persistence was revealing something.

Waves repeatedly pushed us out of position while fish continued moving through approximately the same narrow part of the surf. Whatever they were responding to—depth, current, food, protection, or some combination—the fish could perceive differences in that water that we couldn’t.

Their movement made some of the invisible structure visible.

Why the Smallest Fish Remain Close to Shore

There is something counterintuitive about watching tiny fish choose the place where waves are breaking. It doesn’t look protected.

For us, it was the part of the water most likely to knock us over.

But safety underwater doesn’t necessarily look like calm water.

For a small fish, extremely shallow water can make life more difficult for some of the animals trying to catch it. A larger predator may still enter—and plenty do—but depth, turbulence and room to maneuver change as the water shoals toward the beach. Juvenile fishes can shift into different depths as they balance the food available there against the risk of being eaten, so sometimes moving only a little shallower can change the odds (Layman, 2000; Miltner et al., 1995; Munsch et al., 2016).

The breaking surf may look rough and exposed to us, but for small fish, shallow water can change both access to food and the odds of being caught by a larger predator. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

And there is plenty to eat.

During summer, some of the smallest schooling fishes—including bay anchovies, striped anchovies and Atlantic silversides—feed largely on plankton carried through the surf. Summer zooplankton can include copepods, mysids, crab larvae and other tiny animals whose numbers shift with tides and time of day (DeLancey, 1987, 1989). Other fishes take food from the sand itself, including mole crabs, passing energy from animals buried beneath the beach into fishes farther up the food web. Surveys of southeastern surf zones have found dozens of species of fish and swimming invertebrates moving through these waters over the seasons (Anderson et al., 1977).

Even some of the food at the very bottom of that web is being produced right there. The phytoplankton growing in southeastern North Carolina’s surf can make these shallow waters considerably more productive than the coastal ocean just offshore, although not as productive as our estuaries (Cahoon et al., 2017).

There is something else happening in all that breaking white water too.

Warm water cannot hold as much oxygen as cooler water. But every time a wave breaks, it churns air into the water. On a hot August day, the same foam and bubbles tossing us around are also helping oxygen move between the air and the shallows (Deike, 2022).

That doesn’t mean the fish were following an oxygen-rich pathway. We couldn’t know that from what we saw. It is simply another reminder that the breaking surf is not just rougher water. Physically and chemically, things are happening there that are different from the calmer water only a short distance away.

The water washing around our ankles is therefore not simply the edge of somewhere more biologically important. It produces food, carries food, exchanges gases with the air—and fishes use it.

That makes the shallow surf something more complicated than a hiding place. A young fish may be balancing several things at once: finding enough food, spending as little energy as possible to get it, and remaining somewhere its chances of becoming food are lower. Different species solve that problem differently.

Juvenile Florida pompano and gulf kingfish offer a good example. Rather than constantly traveling along the coastline, some can remain surprisingly attached to particular stretches of surf-zone nursery habitat for weeks (Ross & Lancaster, 2002).

So even a fish that appears to be traveling may still be working within a familiar piece of shoreline—feeding through it, shifting with the tide, or repeatedly using the same shallow habitat.

The scale of movement matters as much as the movement itself.

The Edge Is Where Dinner Waits

Where prey gather predictably, predators gain an advantage too.

That made the behavior we saw especially interesting. Houndfish, one possible match for those long fish, are large needlefishes built to take other fish, and the ones near us seemed less interested in charging through the entire school than in picking off individuals. They waited, darted toward the passing fish, took one, then returned to approximately the same area. Meanwhile, the line of small fishes carried on like nothing had occurred.

Farther out, where the water had changed to deep green, something much larger appeared to be doing its own version of the same thing. Whatever the animal was, we saw it break the surface more than once in approximately the same area while fish were there.

A predator doesn’t have to search every yard of open water equally.

Sometimes the predator is little more than a glimpse. A small fin breaking the surface (upper right of image) can be the only visible clue that something larger is working the same patch of water as the baitfish. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

Schooling fishes gather where conditions favor them, and those concentrations can be shaped by depth, temperature, currents and other physical features. When prey collect in one place instead of being scattered widely, feeding opportunities become concentrated there too (Goetsch et al., 2023; Olds et al., 2018).

Surf fishermen have been reading that relationship from above the water for generations. A trough, a cut through a sandbar or a sudden concentration of bait can be a clue not only to where the smaller fish are gathering, but to where something larger may come looking for them (Ward, n.d.).

What looked from our perspective like separate layers of fish may therefore have been something more dynamic.

The smallest fish were using conditions that suited them. Their concentration, in turn, created an opportunity for a predator capable of working alongside that concentration. What gave one animal access to plankton or a little more protection could simultaneously make it easier for another animal to find dinner.

The fish may disappear beneath the surface, but the water can still give it away—a brief wake or disturbance marking movement that is otherwise hidden from view. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

It wasn’t simply a food chain conveniently lined up from smallest fish near shore to largest predator offshore. Each animal was using the same physical landscape differently, and one animal’s useful habitat could become another animal’s hunting ground.

The structure beneath the water wasn’t just organizing where fish could move.

It was helping organize where encounters between them could happen.

When the Line Breaks

The fish themselves add another layer.

Once individuals gather into a school, they begin responding not only to the water and predators around them, but to one another.

“Safety in numbers” captures only part of what that accomplishes. A fish in a school has neighbors watching in many directions, and information about danger can move rapidly through the group. Individuals continually adjust their spacing and direction in response to nearby fish, habitat and perceived threats, so a school can tighten, turn or reorganize without every fish having to detect the predator independently (Munsch et al., 2016).

There are tradeoffs. A large school may be easier to notice than a lone fish, and crowding means sharing food and space. But once a predator attacks, the group can make choosing and isolating a single target much harder. Instead of one fish moving through open water, the predator encounters many similar bodies changing direction almost at once.

And all of that coordination has to happen while the water beneath them is moving too.

A school in the shallow surf isn’t reacting to a predator against a blank background. Depth is changing. Waves are passing through. Currents are pushing alongshore and back toward the sea. The fish have to stay together while continuously adjusting to the landscape around them.

Then an attack can rearrange everything in seconds.

A school may compress, turn sharply, split apart, or scatter as the threat moves through it. Sometimes the quickest route away is upward, and baitfish begin breaking the surface.

Sometimes the chase shows itself before the predator does. A small patch of agitated water can be the only sign that the school beneath the surface has suddenly changed direction. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

From above, that sudden spray of little bodies can look almost disconnected from what caused it. The predator may never become visible at all. What we see is the response moving through the school—the orderly shape breaking apart and reforming as hundreds of tiny decisions happen at once.

The line, in other words, was never simply a line.

It was a coordinated group whose shape could change almost instantly when the balance between traveling, feeding and surviving changed.

Just Beyond the Breakers

The surf zone doesn’t end at a precise biological boundary where the last wave breaks.

The water on either side of that breaker is connected, but the conditions are changing. Depth increases. The bottom falls farther away. Wave energy changes. Animals that can move comfortably through one part of that gradient may use another part differently, and fishes can cross between them as their needs change (Olds et al., 2018).

Beyond the shallow surf, the water deepens and the habitat changes with it—but the boundary is not a hard line. Fish move back and forth across that transition as their needs change. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

That makes the surf less like a row of separate habitats and more like a transition.

On the landward side are the shallow runnels and troughs used by small fishes. Farther out, those waters connect with the open nearshore ocean. Along the beach, the same surf runs toward inlets, and beyond those inlets lie estuaries and nursery habitats. For a fish, these aren’t necessarily separate places encountered one at a time. They can be connected parts of its life.

That connection becomes particularly important for young fishes.

Some species arrive in shallow coastal waters during early life stages. Others move between estuarine nurseries and the ocean as they grow. Still others use the surf primarily to feed or travel. The importance of any one patch of shallow water therefore depends partly on what it connects to (Olds et al., 2018; Ross & Lancaster, 2002).

Predators cross those connections as well. As prey move into deeper water, toward an inlet or along the shoreline, they become available to a different mix of animals. Conversely, a predator following prey does not need to remain on one side of a line humans call “the breakers.”

The larger animal we glimpsed offshore isn’t evidence of a particular cross-shore food chain. We don’t know what it was, what it caught, or why it was feeding there.

What its presence does illustrate is that the ecological landscape continues beyond what we can easily see from knee- or waist-deep water.

The surf is an edge, but it is also a bridge.

Movement Within Movement

Follow that bridge along the North Carolina coast and the scale changes again.

Our long stretches of open beach are repeatedly interrupted by inlets, and behind those inlets lie sounds, tidal creeks, marshes and estuaries. To us, those places often have separate names and boundaries. To a fish moving through them, they are connected pieces of habitat used at different times and for different reasons.

The surf itself can be both a place to feed and a route between those places (Olds et al., 2018). A juvenile using shallow water may later move deeper, follow the coast toward an inlet, or leave a nursery area as it grows. Another fish may do almost the opposite and remain surprisingly local. Juvenile Florida pompano and gulf kingfish tagged along southeastern North Carolina beaches, for example, could remain faithful to relatively small areas of surf for extended periods (Ross & Lancaster, 2002).

A few feet with the tide, weeks along one beach, a journey between estuary and ocean, or a seasonal movement along hundreds of miles of coastline can therefore all belong to the same animal at different times in its life.

What looks like one continuous stretch of water can connect very different habitats—from the shallow surf to inlets, estuaries, and the nearshore ocean. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

Those aren’t separate stories.

They fit inside one another.

That is what makes a shallow stretch of surf important even when it is not a final destination. It may be feeding ground, nursery habitat, temporary refuge, travel corridor—or simply the connective piece that allows a fish to reach the next habitat it needs.

The coastline is not only habitat made of places.

It is habitat made of connections between them.

The Late-Summer Coast

By August, many of those connections are busy.

The surf fills with its greatest abundance and variety of fishes during the warm months from June through August (North Carolina Sea Grant, 2019). The shallowest surf holds its greatest abundance and diversity during this part of the year (Layman, 2000).

For someone walking into warm August water, that means the crowd beneath the surface can be very different from the one occupying the same beach in winter.

By late summer, the shallow surf can look almost unchanged from day to day while the mix of fish moving through it shifts with temperature, tide, food, and life stage. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

Some of the year’s young fishes have had months to grow. Seasonal changes in plankton and animals living on and beneath the sand alter the food available to them, while water temperature, tides, waves and each species’ own life cycle influence which fishes are present and where they spend their time (Anderson et al., 1977; DeLancey, 1987, 1989; Olds et al., 2018; Wickliffe et al., 2019).

Those changes ripple upward. Small fishes link plankton and other tiny prey with larger predatory fishes, and dense gatherings of forage fish can create concentrated feeding opportunities for predators higher in the food web (Goetsch et al., 2023).

But even “late summer” doesn’t describe one fixed community.

The tide can rearrange the shallow habitat over the course of hours. More species enter the very shallow surf at high tide than at low tide, and the community changes again after dark as adult predators move into water they use differently during the day (Layman, 2000).

Temperature, tide, light and life stage change it.

All of those cycles overlap along a coastline where animals are also arriving, leaving, feeding, growing and moving between habitats.

The shoreline may stay in the same place on our map.

Ecologically, it is never quite the same place twice.

Looking at the Water Differently

What began as an odd little line of fish turned out to be a glimpse of several things happening at once.

The shallow surf had physical structure even where we couldn’t clearly see it. That structure could change where food collected, where small fishes found useful habitat, and where predators encountered prey. The schools themselves added another layer, responding not only to the water around them but to one another. Beyond them, the surf connected outward toward deeper water and alongshore toward inlets, estuaries and larger movements taking place along the coast.

None of that requires every fish we saw to have been following a migration route.

In some ways, that makes the afternoon more interesting.

Movement in the ocean doesn’t begin with the thousand-mile journey of a shark or a sea turtle. It can begin with an animal responding to a few inches of depth, a shifting tide, a patch of food or the sudden arrival of a predator. Those small decisions accumulate across schools, habitats, seasons and coastlines until they become some of the larger patterns we recognize.

None of those animals needed the boundaries to be visible to us.

The fish were already responding to depth, water movement, food, risk, season and one another. Their paths crossed a landscape hidden beneath waves and glare.

Maybe that is one of the easiest things to miss when we stand at the edge of the ocean.

We look out and see water.

Sometimes, if we stay there long enough, the animals begin drawing the map.

Once you know what to look for, the water stops looking empty. Larger fish move through the same surf that, from a distance, can seem almost featureless. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

References

Allen, L. G., & Pondella II, D. J. (2006). Surf zone, coastal pelagic zone and harbors. In The Ecology of Marine Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters (pp. 149-166). University of California Press.

Anderson, W. D., Dias, J. K., Dias, R. K., Cupka, D. M., & Chamberlain, N. A. (1977). The Macrofauna of the surf zone off folly beach, South Carolina (NMFS SSRF-704). NOAA. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EKM2rRmrBEYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=+fish+behavior+in+the+surf+zone+north+carolina&ots=ZzlY5Ddul_&sig=bBAuFw1u6Pi4TS-fb2fJhId2cSk#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cahoon, L. B., Bugica, K., Wooster, M. K., & Dickens, A. K. (2017). Factors affecting surf zone phytoplankton production in southeastern North Carolina, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 196, 269-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.07.012

Deike, L. (2022). Mass transfer at the ocean–atmosphere interface: The role of wave breaking, droplets, and bubbles. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 54(1), 191-224. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-030121-014132

DeLancey, L. B. (1987). The summer zooplankton of the surf zone at Folly Beach, South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research, 3(2). https://journals.flvc.org/jcr/article/view/77561

DeLancey, L. B. (1989). Trophic relationship in the surf zone during the summer at Folly Beach, South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research, 5(3). https://journals.flvc.org/jcr/article/view/78162

Goetsch, C., Gulka, J., Friedland, K., Winship, A., Clerc, J., Gilbert, A., Goyert, H., Stenhouse, I., Williams, K., Willmott, J., Rekdahl, M., Rosenbaum, H., & Adams, E. (2023). Surface and subsurface oceanographic features drive forage fish distributions and aggregations: Implications for prey availability to top predators in the US Northeast shelf ecosystem. Ecology and Evolution, 13(7), e10226. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.167163077.72855489/v1

Harris, S. (2024, September 19). Finding fish in lots of water. Coastwatch. https://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/coastwatch/finding-fish-in-lots-of-water

Koval, G. N., Dugan, J. E., & Hamilton, S. L. (2025). Seasonal variation and response of surf zone fish assemblages to environmental variables in the Northeast Pacific. Continental Shelf Research, 293, 105526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2025.105526

Layman, C. (2000). Fish assemblage structure of the shallow ocean surf-zone on the Eastern Shore of Virginia barrier islands. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 51(2), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2000.0636

Miltner, R. J., Ross, S. W., & Posey, M. H. (1995). Influence of food and predation on the depth distribution of juvenile spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) in tidal nurseries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52(5), 971-982. https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-096

Munsch, S., Cordell, J., & Toft, J. (2016). Fine-scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish community: Nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 557, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11862

N.C. Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel. (2026). Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-Ocean Coastlines. N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management. https://www.deq.nc.gov/coastal-management/draft-science-panel-report-effects-hard-structures-june-15-2026-v3

North Carolina Sea Grant. (2023, July 27). What fish species live in the surf zone? Hook, Line and Science. https://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/hooklinescience/what-fish-species-live-in-the-surf-zone

Olds, A. D., Vargas‐Fonseca, E., Connolly, R. M., Gilby, B. L., Huijbers, C. M., Hyndes, G. A., Layman, C. A., Whitfield, A. K., & Schlacher, T. A. (2017). The ecology of fish in the surf zones of ocean beaches: A global review. Fish and Fisheries, 19(1), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12237

Parker, R., & Ross, S. W. (1986). Observing reef fishes from submersibles off North Carolina. Northeast Gulf Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.18785/negs.0801.03

Ross, S. W., & Lancaster, J. E. (2002). Movements and site fidelity of two juvenile fish species using surf zone nursery habitats along the southeastern North Carolina coast. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 63(2), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014287917297

Tyler, C. L., & Kowalewski, M. (2018). Regional surveys of macrobenthic shelf invertebrate communities in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, U.S.A. Scientific Data, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.54

Ulanski, S. (2011). Fishing North Carolina’s Outer Banks: The complete guide to catching more fish from surf, pier, sound, and ocean. University of North Carolina Press.

Wickliffe, L. C., Rhode, F. C., Riley, K. L., & Morris, Jr., J. A. (2019). An assessment of fisheries species to inform time-of-year restrictions for North Carolina and South Carolina (NOS NCCOS 263). NOAA Technical Memorandum. https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/data_reports/an-assessment-of-fisheries-species-to-inform-time-of-year-restrictions-for-north-carolina-and-south-carolina/

Wilber, D., Clarke, D., Ray, G., & Burlas, M. (2003). Response of surf zone fish to beach nourishment operations on the northern coast of New Jersey, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 250, 231-246. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps250231

August 22, 2026
The Life an Oyster Builds: Eastern Oysters in the Sounds of Onslow County

At low tide, an oyster reef can look like the remains of something rather than the beginning of it.

Gray shells rise unevenly from the mud. Some are tightly closed, their animals hidden inside. Others have been opened by predators, weakened by sponges, broken by waves, or left behind by oysters that died years before. Barnacles spread across their ridges. Mud crabs retreat into the narrow spaces between them. Small fish hold near the edges until the falling water carries them toward deeper channels.

Nothing about the reef appears to be moving.

Yet movement is what brought every oyster there.

The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, begins life drifting through the water, small enough to travel wherever tides, winds, and currents carry it. For its first few weeks, it has no permanent place in the sound and no guarantee that it will ever find one.

Then, if it survives long enough, it must stop.

Once an oyster attaches, it will remain in that exact place through changing tides, heavy rain, summer heat, predators, disease, sediment, harvest, and whatever else the sound sends across its gills.

It cannot search for better water.

It cannot climb away from the mud.

It cannot leave when the season changes.

Its life depends upon finding the right place once—and upon what earlier oysters left there before it arrived.

Before the Oyster Has a Shell We Recognize

During the warmer months, adult oysters release eggs and sperm directly into the surrounding water. Fertilization takes place outside the shell, producing microscopic embryos that soon become part of the plankton.

They do not yet resemble the oysters exposed along a low-tide reef.

They are small, mobile, and carried almost entirely by the water around them.

Eastern oyster life cycle, from spawning and free-swimming larvae to settlement,, spat, and adulthood.
| Image credit: NOAA Fisheries

Over the next two to three weeks, the larvae pass through several stages while tides move them through the estuary. A larva may be carried from a reef into a creek, pushed toward a marsh edge by wind, or swept farther downriver as freshwater moves through the system. Some remain close to the place where they were spawned. Others may settle in another part of the sound entirely (Hillman & Galtsoff, 1965; Kennedy, 1996).

Most never reach that point.

They are eaten by other plankton-feeding animals. They arrive in water they cannot tolerate. They sink onto soft mud where no hard surface remains exposed. They may reach the bottom only to be buried before they can attach.

An adult female may release millions of eggs during a spawning season (Kennedy, 1996).

That number does not describe how easily oysters survive.

It reveals how many beginnings the estuary loses.

Near the end of its drifting life, the larva develops a temporary foot and begins testing the surfaces below it. It is searching for something firm enough to hold it above the mud.

Stone, concrete, marl or limestone may work. But old oyster shell offers something more familiar: a hard surface already shaped by the reef and positioned where another oyster once managed to survive (Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

When the larva finds that surface, it cements itself permanently in place. Its drifting life ends, and it becomes a juvenile oyster called spat.

This arrival of a new generation is called recruitment (Kennedy, 1996).

But spawning alone does not create recruitment. Larvae must survive the water, find a surface, attach, and remain alive after settlement.

The difference between a river filled with oyster larvae and a river rebuilding an oyster reef lies in what those larvae find when they are finally ready to stop.

The Place Where It Stops

Once attached, the young oyster becomes part of a world that moves around an animal that cannot.

Water enters between its two valves and passes across the gills. Microscopic cilia guide suspended particles toward the mouth, where the oyster sorts what has arrived. Some particles become food. Others are bound in mucus and rejected.

Eastern oysters feed largely on phytoplankton—microscopic algae suspended within the water—although they may also consume bacteria, protozoans, organic material, and other particles small enough to use (Hillman & Galtsoff, 1965; Kennedy et al., 1996).

This is the process we describe when we say an oyster filters water.

The oyster is not cleaning the sound as a separate service.

It is trying to eat.

The oyster therefore lives within a constant exchange between opportunity and risk. The same tide that carries food may bring saltier water, predators, larvae, sediment, or disease. Rainfall may lower salinity enough to offer relief from some marine organisms while forcing the oyster to remain closed. Warmer water may support rapid growth while increasing the demands placed upon the animal.

Oyster reefs create habitat and influence water quality, but the oysters within them remain exposed to changing salinity, temperature, oxygen, sediment, disease, and predators. | Image credit: Estuary Chesapeake

None of those conditions remains fixed.

New River does not carry the same water after several dry weeks that it carries after days of heavy rain. Stump Sound does not behave the same near an inlet as it does within a quieter creek. Wind may hold water against one shoreline, while the tide pulls it away from another.

A few feet of elevation within the reef can matter as well.

An oyster growing near the upper surface receives more moving water and remains farther above accumulating sediment. Another only inches lower may be repeatedly coated with mud.

To us, both oysters appear to occupy the same reef. To the oysters, they may inhabit very different places (Kinsella, 2019; Kennedy et al., 1996).

Growing Where It Landed

A newly settled oyster begins with a thin shell and almost no control over what happens next.

Mud crabs can crush it. Small predators can peel it from the surface. Barnacles, mussels, tunicates, algae, and neighboring oysters compete for the same exposed space. A layer of sediment thin enough to overlook from above may bury an oyster that has only recently become visible (Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

If it survives, its shell begins to thicken.

The oyster does not grow into the smooth, symmetrical form we might expect from something sold on ice. Wild oysters take the shape their surroundings allow. They grow around one another, into narrow openings, across old shell, and toward whatever space remains exposed to the water (Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

Those ridges and uneven curves are not mistakes. They are the record of a life lived without moving.

As neighboring oysters grow together, their shells begin to lock into a larger structure. Spaces open among them. Mud crabs disappear into the crevices. Blennies, gobies, worms, shrimp, barnacles, and anemones occupy surfaces the oysters created simply by surviving in the same place (Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

The reef is not built according to a plan. It emerges from generation after generation solving the same problem together: stay above the mud, remain exposed to moving water, and leave another hard surface behind.

In North Carolina, an oyster may reach the legal market size of three inches in approximately two to three years, although the actual rate varies greatly among locations and between wild and cultivated oysters (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2022).

A farmed oyster may be raised above the bottom, protected within bags or cages, cleaned of fouling organisms, and tumbled to create a deeper, more uniform shell. A wild oyster receives no such adjustment. It grows wherever its larval journey ended. That difference helps shape the shell, but the water still shapes both (Kinsella, 2019).

Neither escapes the sound.

When an Oyster Becomes Part of a Place

An oyster growing in New River is the same species as one growing elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast.

But place leaves a mark.

The water moving through the river, the sediment beneath the reef, the distance from the inlet, and the crowded shells around it all influence how an oyster grows. Over time, those conditions can produce oysters recognized not only by species, but by where they came from.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, people were speaking of the New River oyster as something distinctive.

At a fisheries convention held in New Bern in 1911, speakers described New River oysters as unusually large and desirable. The largest were called “whoppers,” and one account placed them among the finest oysters produced along the Atlantic Coast (North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey, 1911).

Tonging for oysters circa 1900, in presumably, Pamlico Sound. | Image credit: C. Graves

The description carried some salesmanship. The convention was intended partly to persuade state leaders that North Carolina’s fisheries needed attention and reform. Still, the language reveals something important.

People believed New River produced an oyster worth naming.

The largest were being packed and shipped to markets in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. Meanwhile, oysters sold closer to the river were sometimes mixed with smaller harvests brought from Myrtle Grove and Stump sounds (North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey, 1911).

The oysters that had come to represent New River were leaving it, and their size made that loss more important than it first appeared.

Oyster dredging on Pamlico Sound ca. 1900. | Image credit: C. Graves

Eastern oysters do not always remain permanently male or female. Many begin reproductive life as males and later function as females, although individuals may change more than once. Size, age, energy reserves, and surrounding conditions all influence that development (Kennedy, 1996).

Larger females can produce far more eggs than smaller oysters. Older oysters have also survived enough seasons to reproduce repeatedly, add height to the reef, and build shells larger than those they inherited (Kennedy, 1996).

Every whopper removed from New River was therefore more than a large meal.

It was a potential parent, part of the reef’s living height, and one more shell that might eventually have given another oyster somewhere to stop (Kinsella, 2019).

The Reefs People Returned To

The New River oyster had acquired a modern name, but the relationship between people and these reefs was already ancient.

Archaeological sites along the coast preserve part of that relationship. Some contain shell middens—places where oyster and clam shells accumulated alongside fish bones, tools, ceramics, charcoal, hearth remains, and other traces of daily life. A midden may appear at first to be little more than a pile of discarded shell (Claassen-MacClelland, 1979).

Oyster shells accumulated in middens record repeated harvest, meals, and generations of people returning to the same estuarine resources. | Image credit: Library of Congress

It is also evidence of repeated return.

People harvested oysters from particular waters, carried them away from the reef, prepared them near homes or gathering places, and left the shells behind. Layer upon layer, those remains show that shellfish were not an occasional food gathered at the edge of an otherwise land-based life. They were part of how people lived beside the estuary.

The shells may also preserve clues about the waters in which the oysters grew. Their size, shape, growth, chemistry, and attached organisms can reflect earlier environmental conditions (Mouchi et al., 2025).

But a midden is not a direct picture of an ancient reef. People selected the oysters they wanted, harvested some places more often than others, and transported shell away from the water. Erosion, development, soil chemistry, and the uneven reach of archaeological surveys further shaped what remained available to find (Claassen-MacClelland, 1979).

The record cannot tell us exactly how many oysters lived in New River at any one time. It tells us that oysters were abundant enough, reliable enough, and important enough for people to return to them across generations.

By the late nineteenth century, those familiar oyster grounds were also becoming mapped resources.

During the 1880s, Lieutenant Francis Winslow’s surveys began translating North Carolina’s naturally productive oyster bottom into measured boundaries, distinguishing public oyster rocks from areas that might be opened to private cultivation (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1887).

Winslow’s “Map of Pamplico Sound and Tributaries” | Image credit: Outer Banks History Center

Winslow’s most extensive work focused on the large sounds of northeastern North Carolina, but the surveys reflected a broader change along the coast. Reefs known through experience and repeated use were being placed within lines that could determine where oysters were harvested, cultivated, leased, or protected.

Decades later, federal surveyors mapped oyster reefs in New River for another reason.

In 1933, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charted the river and its tributaries from the inlet toward Jacksonville. Its surveyors recorded channels, shoreline features, depths, and anything a vessel might encounter.

Some oyster reefs rose high enough to matter.

A 1933 chart of New River showing oyster rocks — reefs exposed or awash at low tide — recorded as part of the navigable landscape. | Image credit: Nautical Charts Online

Features shown with the symbol commonly used for rocks awash were identified in the survey records as oyster rocks exposed or washed over at normal low water (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1933).

These were not isolated shells scattered across the bottom. They were reefs substantial enough to interrupt navigation and become part of the charted river.

The charts cannot tell us how many living oysters occupied each reef, whether the reefs were still growing, or how much had already been lost to harvest and shell removal. They show what remained visible enough to measure.

At low tide, generations of oysters became geography.

Intertidal oyster rocks exposed at low tide, where generations of living and dead shell build the reef upward from the soft bottom. | Image credit: CoastalReview.org

What Was Taken With the Oyster

The living oysters were not the only useful part of the reef.

Their shells could be burned into lime, spread onto agricultural land, crushed into roads, or used in construction. Once carried away from the sound, however, those shells could no longer become part of another oyster generation (Carter et al., 2006).

The reef was harvested twice.

First came the oyster.

Then came the place where its descendants might have settled.

This was the deeper loss behind the warnings raised at the 1911 fisheries convention. Participants were not only concerned that large New River oysters were disappearing from local markets. They also discussed the importance of leaving or returning shell to the water.

One proposal called for shell to be replaced according to the number of oysters removed (North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey, 1911).

The larva explains why.

A high reef keeps much of its shell exposed above the soft bottom. Water moves through the spaces between oysters. Young spat settle onto hard surfaces rather than disappearing into mud. Crabs and fish occupy openings that persist even after the animals that formed them die (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2022; Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

Fewer oysters leave less shell. Less shell gives fewer larvae somewhere to stop (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2022; Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

The reef does not simply lose its occupants. It loses the architecture required to replace them.

Returning What the Larva Needed

By 1911, fisheries representatives were warning that New River’s celebrated oysters were disappearing and that the shell removed with them needed to be returned to the water. Four years later, North Carolina began formally planting cultch onto oyster grounds (Daniel, 2015; North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey, 1911).

The reasoning was simple. Oyster larvae could still drift through the estuary, but without exposed hard surface, many had nowhere to settle.

At first, the material returned was largely oyster shell. It had already supported one oyster above the bottom, and its rough surface could support another. Shell recycling continues that same exchange by returning to the water what might otherwise leave the estuary as waste.

But replacing shell does not automatically rebuild a reef.

Loose shell may sink into soft sediment, scatter during storms, or become coated with mud before larvae arrive. Even after settlement, young oysters remain vulnerable to predators, boring sponges, poor water quality, burial, and the changing bottom beneath them (Daniel, 2015; Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

As those limits became clearer—and as clean shell became less available—restoration expanded to include marl, limestone, concrete, and manufactured structures. These materials do not replace oyster shell in every way, but their weight and shape may help them remain exposed where loose shell would sink or shift (Daniel, 2015; Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

Protected reefs and sanctuaries address a different loss. They give oysters time to grow, reproduce, die, and leave their shells where they settled. Over multiple generations, living oysters and empty shell can accumulate into the height and complexity that a newly planted surface does not yet possess (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2022).

Aquaculture creates another kind of oyster landscape. Farms may raise oysters above the bottom in bags or cages, reducing some risks from burial and bottom-dwelling predators while producing a marketable crop. The oysters remain connected to the surrounding sound, but the structure is managed around growth and harvest rather than the long accumulation of shell within a natural reef (Kinsella, 2019).

The oysters grown there may be diploid, triploid, or selectively bred for traits such as faster growth, improved shell shape, summer body condition, or resistance to particular diseases. Those choices influence more than the oysters eventually harvested.

Triploid eastern oysters typically invest less energy in reproduction that diploids, often maintaining fuller body condition during warmer months while contributing fewer larvae to surrounding waters. | Image credit: Nell, 2002

Triploids devote far less energy to reproduction and usually contribute fewer larvae to surrounding waters. That can reduce the movement of farm-selected genetics into wild populations, but it also means that a farm containing many living oysters may contribute relatively little to the next generation settling beyond its cages. Selective breeding creates a different tradeoff. By choosing which oysters become broodstock, hatcheries repeatedly reproduce some traits while others present in the broader population are not carried forward in that line (Matt et al., 2025). If those cultured oysters are fertile, their larvae may mix with nearby wild populations and influence the genetic makeup of later generations (Varney et al., 2018).

A trait useful on a farm is not necessarily useful under every condition outside it. An oyster selected for rapid growth, shell shape, or survival against one disease may not be equally suited to burial, predators, storms, low salinity, or another disease on unmanaged bottom. Selection can strengthen a desired trait without preserving every form of variation that helps a wild population respond to an uncertain estuary (Matt et al., 2025).

A restored reef, a sanctuary, and an oyster farm may all place or protect oysters within the same estuary. They are not identical structures, and they do not ask oysters to serve the same purpose.

Cultch returns a place to settle. Heavier material helps that place remain exposed. Sanctuaries provide time for oysters and shell to accumulate. Recycling keeps old shell within the cycle. Aquaculture raises oysters above some hazards while supporting a working fishery.

Each approach returns something.

None returns everything an old reef contained.

Oysters growing near Soundside Park in Surf City, where reef structure, tidal exposure, sediment, and changing water conditions all shape what survives. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

A Coast That Does Not Hold Still

New River and Stump Sound have never been stationary places.

The same barrier-island processes that shape them today—shifting inlets, storms, tides, freshwater flow, erosion, and moving sediment—also surrounded the reefs that once produced New River’s “whopper” oysters. Channels changed, shell was buried and exposed, and salinity rose and fell long before oyster restoration began.

Yet those earlier reefs persisted.

Their stability did not come from an unchanging coast. It came from abundance. Large numbers of oysters spawned into the water, while generations of living and dead shell held parts of the reef above the mud. Losses in one season could be followed by settlement in another. A storm might damage one portion of a reef while exposing shell elsewhere. Enough adults, larvae, and hard surface remained for the structure to continue rebuilding itself.

That capacity changes as reefs become smaller, lower, or more widely separated.

A reduced reef produces fewer larvae and offers less exposed shell when those larvae are ready to settle. A newly planted reef may provide hard surface, but it does not immediately contain the height, age structure, reproductive adults, or accumulated generations of shell found in an older reef. It must develop those qualities while the estuary continues to move around it (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2022; Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

Restoration does not begin after that movement has ended.

It happens inside it.

A successful settlement may be followed by storm-driven burial. Repeated rainfall may lower salinity, while drought can allow disease and saltwater predators to move farther upriver. Dredging or a shifting channel may alter the current carrying food and larvae across the reef. A sanctuary can prevent harvest, and heavier material may resist sinking, but neither can supply suitable water or guarantee that enough oysters will survive and reproduce (Ben-Horin et al., 2024; Ford & Tripp, 1996; Kinsella, 2019).

Oyster reef condition is measured by more than abundance alone. Reef height, extent, structural complexity, and the amount of shell retained all help determine how well a reef can persist and rebuild. | Image credit: NOAA Fisheries

This is why restoration does not move in a straight line from damaged to rebuilt. Its outcome depends not only on whether shell or another material was placed in the water, but on what develops there afterward: how many larvae arrive, which oysters reproduce, how much shell remains exposed, and whether the reef can begin replacing its own losses (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2022; Theuerkauf et al., 2015).

At low tide, an old reef and a newly restored one may both appear to be fixed patches of shell.

The difference lies in what each can carry forward when the coast moves again.

Oyster farms can remove suspended algae and nutrients as oysters feed, but their benefits still depend on the water moving through the estuary around them. | Image credit: NOAA Fisheries

What the Shell Cannot Tell Us

An oyster growing along the edge of a creek does not look different when the water around it closes to harvest.

Its shell may remain tightly shut at low tide. It may continue feeding when the water returns, adding new growth along its edge and sharing the reef with oysters that appear equally healthy. Nothing visible in the animal tells us whether the surrounding water is approved for harvest, temporarily closed after heavy rain, part of a private lease, or prohibited from direct harvest altogether.

Those distinctions exist on maps rather than shells.

A healthy-looking oyster does not reveal whether the water around it is open to harvest or whether harmful bacteria or contaminants may be present. | Image credit: Chesapeake Bay Program

Shellfish-growing classifications reflect what may enter the water from the land around it: runoff, wastewater systems, marinas, shoreline development, rainfall, currents, and freshwater moving through the estuary. Some areas remain generally open. Others may be harvested only while certain conditions are met, and some remain closed because the risk of contamination is too great (Coulliette & Noble, 2008).

The oyster experiences the water itself, not the line drawn around it.

It may continue to grow in water from which people cannot safely gather it. Contaminants and naturally occurring bacteria do not always change its appearance, smell, or taste. A reef can therefore look alive and productive while the oysters growing there are not legally—or safely—available for someone walking past at low tide.

The old advice to eat oysters only during months containing the letter “R” cannot reveal those conditions either.

The saying reaches back to a time when cool weather made harvested oysters easier to store and transport before reliable refrigeration (Purvis, 2025). It also follows the seasonal life of wild diploid oysters, which use much of their stored energy for reproduction during warmer months and may become thinner or more watery after spawning. Triploid farmed oysters reproduce far less and may retain fuller bodies through summer (Bodenstein et al., 2023).

But the spelling of the month does not tell us where an oyster grew or what happened after it left the water.

Warm conditions increase concerns from naturally occurring Vibrio bacteria (Froelich & Noble, 2016), while heavy rainfall, wastewater failures, harmful algal blooms, and other contamination can affect shellfish waters in any season (Coulliette & Noble, 2008; Rolton et al., 2022). A legally harvested oyster from monitored water may be sold during a month without an “R.” An oyster gathered from closed water in January may still be unsafe (Coulliette & Noble, 2008; Purvis, 2025).

Vibrio vulnificus can occur naturally in coastal waters and may be present in oysters without changing how they look, smell, or taste.
Image credit: Northwest Fisheries Science Center

What matters is less visible: where the oyster was harvested, whether that water was open at the time, the tag identifying the shellfish lot, and how quickly the oysters were cooled and handled (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2023).

A drifting larva cannot see any of those boundaries or classifications. It encounters water, sediment, predators, and whatever hard surface remains exposed when it is ready to settle.

Only later do people draw lines around the place where it stopped.

What the Reef Keeps

Eventually, the oyster dies.

Its soft body may be eaten or disappear after a predator opens the shell. The shell remains longer. Barnacles spread across it. A mud crab settles beneath one edge, while a small fish slips into the space between it and the next shell.

Waves may break it. Sediment may bury it. A storm may expose it again years later. It may leave the sound with a harvested oyster, return as recycled cultch, or remain where the animal spent its entire attached life.

If it stays within the reef, death changes the oyster’s role without ending it.

The living animal once fed, reproduced, and added new shell along its growing edge. The empty shell now helps hold the reef above the bottom, preserves shelter for other animals, and offers hard surface to larvae still drifting through the sound.

This is what connects the old New River oyster rocks, the shells carried away, the cultch returned, and the reefs still being restored and protected today. The modern oyster landscape has changed, but the next generation still depends upon the same inheritance.

A larva begins with nowhere to belong.

After weeks carried through water it cannot control, it reaches the reef and touches shell. The surface may belong to an oyster that died the previous summer. Beneath it may lie another shell worn by years of tides, and beneath that, fragments left by generations no one saw alive.

The larva cannot know how the reef began or what people have done to preserve it.

It only knows that the surface holds.

The drifting ends, and another life becomes fixed to the history beneath it.

At low tide, the reef may still look like the remains of something. Look closer, and there is no clean line between an ending and a beginning.

What one generation leaves changes what the next can become.

Living and empty oyster shells layered within an Onslow County marsh, where one generation’s remains may become the foundation for the next. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

References

Ben-Horin, T., Ciesielski, M., Lucas, J., Noble, R. T., & Wilbur, A. (2024). Pathology associated with summer oyster mortality in North Carolina. Aquaculture Reports, 34, 101901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2023.101901

Bodenstein, S., Casas, S. M., Tiersch, T. R., & La Peyre, J. F. (2023). Energetic budget of diploid and triploid eastern oysters during a summer die-off. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1194296

Carter, K., Stevenson, Jr., G., & Stick, D. (2006). Shellfish. NCpedia. https://www.ncpedia.org/shellfish

Claassen-MacClelland, C. P. (1979, November). Prehistoric occupation on the central and southern coast of North Carolina: Two hypotheses [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Coker, R. E. (1907). Experiments in oyster culture in Pamlico sound, North Carolina (Bulletin No. 15). North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Geological%20Survey/Bulletins_NCGS/NCGS_Bulletin_15_Oyster_Culture_in_Pamlico_Sound.pdf

Coulliette, A. D., & Noble, R. T. (2008). Impacts of rainfall on the water quality of the Newport river Estuary (Eastern North Carolina, USA). Journal of Water and Health, 6(4), 473-482. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2008.136

Daniel, L. B. (2015, March). The N.C. experience: The history of oyster management over the past century [Paper presentation]. North Carolina Oyster Summit, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Raleigh, NC.

Ford, S. E., & Tripp, M. R. (1996). Diseases and defense mechanisms. In V. S. Kennedy, R. I. E. Newell, & A. F. Eble (Eds.), The eastern oyster: Crassostrea virginica (pp. 581-660). Maryland Sea Grant College.

Froelich, B. A., & Noble, R. T. (2016). Vibrio bacteria in raw oysters: Managing risks to human health. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1689), 20150209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0209

Gerard, P. (2016, May 11). History: The great oyster war. Our State. https://www.ourstate.com/history-great-oyster-war/

Hillman, R. E., & Galtsoff, P. S. (1965). The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Chesapeake Science, 6(3), 199. https://doi.org/10.2307/1350854

Kennedy, V. S. (1996). Biology of larvae and spat. In V. S. Kennedy, R. I. E. Newell, & A. F. Eble (Eds.), The eastern oyster: Crassostrea virginica (pp. 371-421). Maryland Sea Grant College.

Kennedy, V. S., E. Newell, R. I., & Eble, A. F. (1996). The eastern oyster: Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant College.

Kinsella, J. D. (2019). Environmental effects on cultured oyster Crassostrea virginica: Implications for filtration capacity and production [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Matt, J. L., Small, J. M., Kube, P. D., & Allen, S. K. (2025). Quantitative genetic analysis of late spring mortality in triploid Crassostrea virginica. Genetics Selection Evolution, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-025-00965-3

Mouchi, V., Andrus, C. F., Checa, A. G., Elliot, M., Griesshaber, E., Hausmann, N., Huyghe, D., Lartaud, F., Peharda, M., & De Winter, N. J. (2025). Oyster shells as archives of present and past environmental variability and life history traits: A multi‐disciplinary review of sclerochronology methods and applications. Limnology and Oceanography Letters, 10(2), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10461

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.). Artificial reefs. NC Dept. of Environmental Quality. Retrieved August 1, 2026, from https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/marine-fisheries/public-information-and-education/coastal-fishing-information/artificial-reefs

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. (2022). Eastern oyster fishery management plan: Amendment 4. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. https://www.deq.nc.gov/marine-fisheries/fisheries-management/annual-fmp-review/2022/eastern-oyster/open

North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey. (1911). Report of the fisheries convention held at New Bern, North Carolina, December 13, 1911. Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/16832

North Carolina Geological Survey. (1887). Report on the waters of North Carolina, with reference to their possibilities for oyster culture. State of North Carolina. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.49874

Puckett, B. (2025). Collaborative development of Uncrewed aerial system approaches to assess intertidal oyster reefs to inform management and restoration. NCCOS – National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/project/collaborative-development-of-uncrewed-aerial-system-approaches-to-assess-intertidal-oyster-reefs-to-inform-management-and-restoration/

Purvis, K. (2025, July 21). ‘R’ you ready to eat oysters all year long? The Assembly NC. https://www.theassemblync.com/news/culture/food/oysters-year-round-north-carolina/

Rolton, A., Rhodes, L., Hutson, K. S., Biessy, L., Bui, T., MacKenzie, L., Symonds, J. E., & Smith, K. F. (2022). Effects of harmful algal blooms on fish and shellfish species: A case study of New Zealand in a changing environment. Toxins, 14(5), 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14050341

Smith, S., Ciesielski, M., Clerkin, T., Ben-Horin, T., & Noble, R. T. (2025). Farmed oyster mortality follows consistent vibrio community reorganization. mSystems, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.01078-25

Theuerkauf, S. J., Burke, R. P., & Lipcius, R. N. (2015). Settlement, growth, and survival of eastern oysters on alternative reef substrates. Journal of Shellfish Research, 34(2), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.2983/035.034.0205

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. (1933). Descriptive report: Topographic survey sheets 4721–4725, New River, North Carolina (HT-113). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/desc_reports/T04721.pdf

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish 2023 Revision. https://www.fda.gov/media/181370/download

Varney, R. L., Watts, J. C., & Wilbur, A. E. (2018). Genetic impacts of a commercial aquaculture lease on adjacent oyster populations. Aquaculture, 491, 310-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.03.060

Winslow, F. (1885). Report of the Waters of North Carolina with reference to their Possibilities for Oyster Culture. P. M. Hale.

August 7, 2026
When the Water Feels Different: What Warmer Summers Mean Along the Onslow County Coast

Most changes in the ocean happen long before we notice them.

The water still looks blue. Waves continue to break across the sandbars. Beachgoers spread their towels beneath the same summer sun, children chase ghost crabs along the tide line, and anglers cast into the surf hoping for a bite.

Yet beneath the surface, a warming ocean is altering the conditions that shape life along the coast.

The changes begin with microscopic organisms drifting through the water column and ripple outward through fish, shellfish, jellyfish, and eventually the people who swim, fish, and play in these waters. Scientists have documented rising ocean temperatures worldwide, with the ocean absorbing the vast majority of the excess heat generated by a warming climate (IPCC, 2023; NASA, 2025).

For beachgoers along the Onslow County coast, these changes often appear as small observations. Water that feels warmer than it once did. Green swirls visible in drone photographs. Jellyfish gathering along the shoreline. Questions about bacteria, shellfish closures, and changing fish patterns.

At first glance, these may seem unrelated.

In reality, they are all connected.

A Longer Summer Beneath the Surface

The ocean does not warm as quickly as the air above it, but it holds heat much longer.

As coastal waters warm earlier in spring and remain warm later into autumn, marine organisms experience something similar to a longer growing season on land. Processes that once occurred over a few summer months may now persist for much longer periods – lasting later into the year or shifting the timing of organisms that are responding to environmental conditions (IPCC, 2023; Menzel et al., 2006).

For marine life, temperature influences nearly everything. Growth rates, feeding behavior, reproduction, migration, and metabolism are all affected by the warmth of the surrounding water (Pörtner & Knust, 2007).

For many species, warmer water means increased biological activity. But every response carries consequences that ripple through the food web.

The first organisms to respond are often the smallest.

When Tiny Things Respond First

Most beachgoers never think about what is suspended in the water around them.

Unlike a forest, marsh, or coral reef, much of the ocean’s life is not immediately visible. Looking across the surf, the water may appear empty except for an occasional fish, jellyfish, or diving bird.

Yet the water column itself is home to countless drifting organisms. Some are microscopic plants. Others are microscopic animals. Together, they form a community known as plankton.

Among the most important are phytoplankton—tiny plant-like organisms that drift with currents and tides. Though nearly invisible to the naked eye, they capture sunlight, form the foundation of marine food webs, and produce much of the oxygen found in Earth’s atmosphere (Falkowski et al., 1998).

Feeding on them are zooplankton, a diverse group of drifting animals that includes tiny crustaceans, larval fish, and the early life stages of many marine organisms. Nearly everything in the ocean depends on this microscopic world in some way.

As temperatures rise and sunlight remains abundant, phytoplankton growth can increase. In many cases, this increased productivity benefits marine ecosystems by providing more food for zooplankton, shellfish, and small fish.

Sometimes, however, the changes become visible.

Drone photographs, fishing reports, and satellite imagery occasionally reveal ribbons and swirls of green water along the coastline. Many people assume these colors indicate pollution, but the explanation is often more complex.

In some cases, the green color reflects increased concentrations of phytoplankton. In others, it may result from suspended sediment, river discharge, or other naturally occurring materials in the water (Behrenfeld et al., 2006).

Green water does not automatically mean unhealthy water.

More often, it is a visible reminder that biological activity is taking place beneath the surface—activity that most beachgoers never see.

In fact, many periods of greener water reflect productive conditions that support marine food webs. Increased phytoplankton can provide more food for zooplankton, shellfish, and small fish, creating benefits that ripple through the ecosystem. The presence of abundant microscopic life is often a sign that the ocean is actively supporting the organisms that depend upon it.

Not all blooms are beneficial, however.

Occasionally, beachgoers hear news reports about harmful algal blooms and wonder whether the water they are seeing is part of one.

Under certain conditions, a small number of phytoplankton species can reproduce so rapidly that they begin affecting the ecosystem around them. These events are known as harmful algal blooms.

Along U.S. coastlines, some of the better-known examples include Karenia brevis, which causes many Gulf Coast red tides; Alexandrium species, which can produce toxins associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning; and Pseudo-nitzschia, which produces domoic acid and has been linked to shellfish closures and wildlife impacts in several regions (Anderson et al., 2012; Trainer et al., 2012).

Unlike the seasonal increases in phytoplankton that help support marine food webs, harmful blooms can stress marine life and create concerns for people. Some produce toxins that accumulate in shellfish, leading to temporary harvesting closures. Others contribute to oxygen declines as large concentrations of algae die and decompose (Anderson et al., 2002).

For beachgoers, the challenge is that harmful blooms do not always look the way people expect. A bloom may appear as a patch of unusually dense water, a streak of discoloration, or sometimes little different from surrounding water. Color alone rarely tells the whole story.

In some cases, blooms may discolor the water, turning it red, rust-colored, brown, orange, or an unusually dense green. Some may also produce odors that people describe as sulfur-like, fishy, or similar to decaying vegetation (Gilbert et al., 2005; Gobler, 2020).

Not all green water is the same. Satellite imagery can reveal differences in phytoplankton concentrations across coastal waters. Many blooms support productive marine ecosystems, while others may become dense enough to affect water quality and ecosystem health. | Image credit: EPA cyanWeb, https://qed.epa.gov/cyanweb/

Fortunately, most periods of pale green, emerald green, or slightly tea-colored water along the Carolina coast are not harmful algal blooms. More often, they reflect normal concentrations of phytoplankton, suspended sediment, river discharge, or other natural processes.

The challenge is that the water does not always reveal which is which at first glance. What appears to be a simple color change may be telling a much more complicated story beneath the surface.

The Oxygen Paradox

Warm water creates a biological contradiction.

As temperatures rise, marine organisms require more oxygen to stay active and carry out basic life processes. At the same time, warmer water naturally holds less dissolved oxygen—the tiny oxygen molecules mixed into the water that fish, crabs, and many other marine animals breathe. Unlike oxygen in the air around us, this oxygen must remain suspended within the water itself, and warmer water cannot hold as much of it as cooler water (Keeling et al., 2010).

In other words, as the demand for oxygen increases, the supply decreases. Scientists refer to this growing challenge as ocean deoxygenation, a phenomenon driven in part by warming oceans and documented in coastal waters around the world (Breitburg et al., 2018; Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008).

The effects are often invisible to beachgoers. Unlike a jellyfish bloom or a patch of green water, low oxygen leaves few obvious clues for someone standing on the shoreline.

Fish may become sluggish, gather near inlets or channels, or disappear from places where they are normally common long before any obvious signs appear at the surface. Crabs, shrimp, and other marine organisms must work harder to find places with enough oxygen to survive. Some may move into shallower water, concentrate in tidal channels, or bury themselves in sediment where conditions remain tolerable. Some areas become less favorable, while others provide temporary pockets of suitable habitat.

The ocean begins to rearrange itself.

Following the Fish

Stand on the beach long enough and patterns begin to emerge.

A stretch of water that looked empty an hour ago suddenly flickers with baitfish. Birds gather over a patch of surf. A school of fish appears just beyond a sandbar, then vanishes as quickly as it arrived.

Most of these movements happen without drawing much attention. To someone walking the shoreline, the ocean can seem unchanged from one day to the next.

Beneath the surface, however, marine life is constantly adjusting.

Fish are not fixed to one place. They move through the water searching for conditions that suit them, often responding to changes that people cannot see. A slight difference in temperature, a pocket of water with more oxygen, or a concentration of prey can be enough to shift where fish gather (Pörtner & Knust, 2007).

Along the beaches of Onslow County, these adjustments may be playing out right in front of us.

Anglers sometimes notice schools of mullet, menhaden, silversides, or other baitfish stacked along a sandbar. Predatory fish such as bluefish, Spanish mackerel, red drum, or even small sharks may linger near an inlet. Feeding activity may suddenly erupt close to shore, with baitfish leaping from the water as predators chase them, birds diving repeatedly into the surf, and flashes of silver visible just beyond the breakers. Tides, currents, and seasonal migrations all help shape these patterns, but fish are also responding to the changing conditions around them.

Even the breaking surf can matter.

Where waves tumble across shallow bars, the water is constantly being mixed and stirred. Oxygen from the atmosphere is worked back into the water, creating conditions with higher oxygen levels than nearby areas where the water is calmer and moves less. What looks like nothing more than a line of breaking waves can become a place where marine life gathers.

Most beachgoers never notice these subtle shifts.

They simply see fish where fish happen to be.

Yet changing ocean conditions are becoming an increasingly important part of the story. Fish may feed in a different stretch of surf than usual, baitfish may gather in unexpected places, or seasonal arrivals may occur a little earlier or later than expected. Most of the time, the reasons remain hidden beneath the surface, but the movements themselves reveal that marine life is responding to a changing ocean (Pinsky et al., 2013).

The ocean is not standing still.

And neither are the fish.

The Species That Thrive

Not every organism responds to warming water in the same way.

Some struggle.

Others thrive.

For many beachgoers, one of the most noticeable signs of seasonal change arrives as translucent shapes drifting through the surf. As plankton populations increase and warm conditions persist, the same environmental changes influencing fish and other marine life can also create favorable conditions for jellyfish.

Jellyfish are a familiar part of coastal life in Onslow County, but their numbers can vary dramatically from season to season. During late spring, summer, and early fall, when air and water temperatures commonly reach about 68–86°F (20–30°C), conditions often become more favorable for larger jellyfish populations than during the colder months.

Most people first notice them while wading in the shallows, scanning the water from a pier, or walking the beach after a storm. A shoreline that seemed empty a few weeks earlier may suddenly hold dozens of stranded jellyfish along the tide line. Depending on the season, visitors might encounter moon jellies pulsing just beneath the surface, cannonball jellies washing ashore in clusters, or the unmistakable blue floats of Portuguese man o’ war carried in by winds and currents.

A shoreline covered with cannonball jellies can appear almost overnight. In reality, the conditions supporting these blooms often develop over weeks or months as water temperatures, food availability, and ocean currents change. | Image credit: Cape Hatteras National Seashore

These appearances can feel sudden, but they rarely are.

A shoreline that seems free of jellyfish one week may be dotted with them the next. To someone standing on the beach, it can feel as though they arrived overnight.

Much of a jellyfish’s life unfolds out of sight. Many drift offshore, while others pass through life stages that most people never notice. As waters warm and food becomes more abundant, conditions can support larger populations. Sometimes the result is a bloom—a period when unusually large numbers gather in coastal waters and become difficult to ignore.

In reality, the conditions that support them may have been developing for weeks or even months. While warmer water does not automatically mean more jellyfish everywhere (Condon et al., 2012), seasonal warming can contribute to periods when jellyfish become unusually abundant in nearshore waters. Currents, food availability, and other environmental factors also influence when and where these blooms occur (Purcell, 2005; Richardson et al., 2009).

For observers on the shore, jellyfish are often among the first visible reminders that changes in ocean conditions do not stay hidden beneath the surface for long.

Not every organism has the ability to drift or swim away.

The Organisms That Cannot Leave

Fish can relocate.

Jellyfish can drift with currents.

Shellfish remain where they are.

For many beachgoers, oysters, clams, and mussels are simply part of the coastal landscape—something encountered at low tide, served at a seafood restaurant, or harvested during shellfish season.

Yet these animals spend their lives doing something remarkable.

Oysters, clams, mussels, and other shellfish continuously draw water through their bodies, removing microscopic food particles as they feed. This is why they are known as filter feeders. A single adult oyster can filter up to 50 gallons (190 L) of water per day, depending on temperature, salinity, and other environmental factors (Jansen, 2023; zu Ermgassen et al., 2012).

An oyster reef does not simply sit on the bottom. Day and night, every oyster is quietly filtering the estuary around it.

Because they process so much water, shellfish become closely connected to the conditions around them. Changes in temperature, oxygen levels, harmful algal blooms, and water quality can all affect their health and survival (Shumway, 1990).

For this reason, shellfish often serve as some of the earliest indicators that environmental conditions have changed.

When shellfish harvesting areas are temporarily closed, many people assume pollution is the only explanation. In reality, closures may occur for a variety of reasons, including elevated levels of bacteria such as fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli (E. coli), or Enterococcus, harmful algal blooms, or other conditions that could affect human health (Food & Drug Administration (FDA), 2023).

In many cases, these closures are evidence that monitoring programs are working exactly as intended.

The shellfish are not causing the problem.

They are revealing it.

By filtering the surrounding water day after day, they provide a glimpse into conditions that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Sometimes, what they reveal is a bacterium that has received increasing attention in recent years.

The Bacteria That Was Already Here

Few marine organisms have generated more public concern in recent summers than Vibrio bacteria.

News headlines often make it sound like a new arrival.

It is not.

Like the phytoplankton, zooplankton, and countless other organisms drifting through coastal waters, Vibrio vulnificus has always been part of the hidden community beneath the surface.

Most beachgoers never notice it. They cannot see it. They do not think about it while wading through the surf or collecting shells along the shoreline.

Yet these bacteria have long occupied an important ecological role.

Vibrio species occur naturally in coastal and estuarine waters around the world. They help break down organic matter and recycle nutrients, returning materials to the food web where they can be used again by other organisms. If they were somehow eradicated, scientists would expect dead plants, algae, fish, and other organic material to break down more slowly. Over time, beach wrack could linger longer along shorelines, decaying material could accumulate in marshes and tidal flats, and nutrients normally returned to the water and sediment would become less available to the organisms that depend on them. These changes might not be obvious at first, but they could gradually alter the health and productivity of coastal ecosystems (Oliver, 2005).

The organic material accumulating along a wrack line supports a hidden community of decomposers. Among them are naturally occurring bacteria that help recycle nutrients and keep coastal ecosystems functioning. Image credit: S. Hilldebrand, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

What often changes first is not the presence of these organisms, but their abundance.

Just as warmer conditions can influence phytoplankton growth, they can also affect microbial communities.

Most of the time, these changes remain invisible.

The water may look the same. The beach may feel the same. Nothing about a morning walk along the shoreline suggests that microscopic populations are shifting beneath the surface.

Yet they are.

When water temperatures rise well above the normal seasonal range for a region and remain elevated for extended periods, conditions can become more favorable for certain Vibrio species. Their populations may increase, raising the likelihood of human exposure (Baker-Austin et al., 2012; Baker-Austin et al., 2018).

For most healthy beachgoers, swimming in coastal waters remains a normal part of enjoying the beach.

However, individuals with open wounds, compromised immune systems, or underlying health conditions may face greater risks and should pay closer attention to local advisories and public health guidance.

The story is not really about a dangerous bacterium suddenly appearing where it did not belong.

It is another example of a broader pattern that runs throughout coastal ecosystems.

As environmental conditions change, the organisms already living there respond. Some become more abundant. Others become less common. Together, their responses reveal something easy to miss while standing at the water’s edge: the shoreline is alive with countless forms of life that most of us never see.

Even the smallest inhabitants are connected to the larger changes unfolding around them.

Reading the Signs

Most beachgoers will never measure dissolved oxygen or monitor water temperatures.

What they will notice are the signs: water that stays warm later into autumn, green swirls visible from a fishing pier or drone photograph, jellyfish gathering along a tide line, fish appearing in unexpected places, temporary shellfish closures, or questions about bacteria that have long existed in coastal waters.

None of these observations tells the whole story on its own.

Taken together, however, they reveal an ecosystem responding to warmer conditions one species, one season, and one degree at a time.

Looking Beneath the Surface

Most changes in the ocean begin out of sight.

Long before beachgoers notice a jellyfish drifting through the surf or a patch of green water offshore, microscopic organisms are already responding to changing conditions. Fish adjust their movements. Oxygen levels shift. Shellfish filter whatever the water brings.

By the time we notice the signs, the ecosystem has often been responding for weeks or months.

The water may feel the same as it always has beneath our feet. Yet each summer offers new clues about the changes taking place below the surface—if we know where to look.

The ocean often appears unchanged from one day to the next. Beneath the surface, however, countless organisms are responding to shifting temperatures, oxygen levels, food availability, and water quality. The more we learn to observe, the more the shoreline reveals. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

References

Anderson, D. M., Cembella, A. D., & Hallegraeff, G. M. (2012). Progress in understanding harmful algal blooms: Paradigm shifts and new technologies for research, monitoring, and management. Annual Review of Marine Science, 4(1), 143-176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081121

Anderson, D. M., Glibert, P. M., & Burkholder, J. M. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries, 25(4), 704-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02804901

Baker-Austin, C., Oliver, J. D., Alam, M., Ali, A., Waldor, M. K., Qadri, F., & Martinez-Urtaza, J. (2018). Vibrio spp. infections. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 4(1), 1-9. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41572-018-0005-8

Baker-Austin, C., Trinanes, J. A., Taylor, N. G., Hartnell, R., Siitonen, A., & Martinez-Urtaza, J. (2012). Emerging vibrio risk at high latitudes in response to ocean warming. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1628

Behrenfeld, M. J., O’Malley, R. T., Siegel, D. A., McClain, C. R., Sarmiento, J. L., Feldman, G. C., Milligan, A. J., Falkowski, P. G., Letelier, R. M., & Boss, E. S. (2006). Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature, 444(7120), 752-755. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05317

Breitberg, D., Levin, L. A., Oschlies, A., Grégoire, M., Chavez, F. P., Conley, D. J., Garçon, V., Gilbert, D., Gutiérrez, D., & Zhang, J. (2018). Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science, 359(6371). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7240

Condon, R. H., Graham, W. M., Duarte, C. M., Pitt, K. A., Lucas, C. H., Haddock, S. H., Sutherland, K. R., Robinson, K. L., Dawson, M. N., Decker, M. B., Mills, C. E., Purcell, J. E., Malej, A., Mianzan, H., Uye, S., Gelcich, S., & Madin, L. P. (2012). Questioning the rise of gelatinous zooplankton in the world’s oceans. BioScience, 62(2), 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.9

Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321(5891), 926-929. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156401

Falkowski, P. G., Barber, R. T., & Smetacek, V. (1998). Biogeochemical controls and feedbacks on ocean primary production. Science, 281(5374), 200-206. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5374.200

Food & Drug Administration (FDA). (2023). National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish (2023 Revision). U. S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/181370/download?attachment

Glibert, P., Anderson, D., Gentien, P., Granéli, E., & Sellner, K. (2005). The global, complex phenomena of harmful algal blooms. Oceanography, 18(2), 136-147. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2005.49

Gobler, C. J. (2020). Climate change and harmful algal blooms: Insights and perspective. Harmful Algae, 91, 101731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2019.101731

IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

Jansen, A. (2023, August). Oysters as a Keystone Species in the Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Ocean. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/oysters-keystone-species-chesapeake-bay

Keeling, R. F., Körtzinger, A., & Gruber, N. (2010). Ocean Deoxygenation in a Warming World. Annual Review of Marine Science, 2, 199-229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163855

Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N., Koch, E., Aasa, A., Ahas, R., Alm-Kübler, K., Bissolli, P., Braslavská, O., Breide, A., Chmielewski, F. M., Crepinsek, Z., Curnel, Y., Dahl, Å., Defila, C., Donnelly, A., Filella, Y., Jatczak, K., Måge, F., … Zust, A. (2006). European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change Biology, 12(10), 1969-1976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x

NASA. (2025, September 25). Ocean warming – Earth indicator. NASA Science. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/ocean-warming/

Oliver, J. D. (2005). Wound infections caused by Vibrio vulnificus and other marine bacteria. Epidemiology and Infection, 133(3), 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268805003894

Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L., & Levin, S. A. (2013). Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science, 341(6151), 1239-1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239352

Pörtner, H. O., & Knust, R. (2007). Climate change affects marine fishes through the oxygen limitation of thermal tolerance. Science, 315(5808), 95-97. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135471

Purcell, J. E. (2005). Climate effects on formation of jellyfish and ctenophore blooms: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 85(3), 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025315405011409

Richardson, A. J., Bakun, A., Hays, G. C., & Gibbons, M. J. (2009). The jellyfish joyride: Causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(6), 312-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.010

Shumway, S. E. (1990). A review of the effects of algal blooms on shellfish and aquaculture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 21(2), 65-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1990.tb00529.x

Trainer, V. L., Bates, S. S., Lundholm, N., Thessen, A. E., Cochlan, W. P., Adams, N. G., & Trick, C. G. (2012). Pseudo-nitzschia physiological ecology, phylogeny, toxicity, monitoring and impacts on ecosystem health. Harmful Algae, 14, 271-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.10.025

Zu Ermgassen, P. S., Spalding, M. D., Grizzle, R. E., & Brumbaugh, R. D. (2012). Quantifying the loss of a marine ecosystem service: Filtration by the eastern oyster in US estuaries. Estuaries and Coasts, 36(1), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9559-y

June 12, 2026
Where the Sand Breathes: Life Beneath the Tide Line in Onslow County

Most beachgoers look across the shoreline and see a boundary.

The ocean ends. The land begins.

But the strip of sand where waves wash ashore and slide back toward the sea is not really either one. It is a threshold—a place that becomes ocean and land again with every passing wave.

At first glance, this narrow band of wet sand appears empty. There are no marsh grasses, no oyster reefs, and no obvious schools of fish. Yet beneath the surface, the sand is alive with animals digging, filtering, feeding, hunting, and breathing.

This is the swash zone: the constantly shifting seam between ocean and land.

It is one of the most overlooked ecosystems on the North Carolina coast.

The swash zone is the narrow strip of shoreline where waves wash ashore and then retreat back toward the sea. Though it may appear to be little more than wet sand, it supports a diverse community of animals adapted to life between ocean and land. | Image credit: J. Morales

The Beach That Never Stops Moving

Unlike a marsh, oyster reef, or seagrass meadow, the swash zone never stays still.

Each wave pushes seawater into the sand and then pulls it back out again. Water moves through the spaces between sand grains, carrying oxygen, microscopic algae, bacteria, and organic matter. The sand itself acts almost like a living filter, supporting communities of organisms adapted to conditions that change minute by minute (Brown & McLachlan, 2018; McLachlan & Defeo, 2018).

To survive here, animals must tolerate burial, shifting sediments, crashing waves, changing salinity, and predators arriving from both land and sea.

Few species can endure such instability.

Those that do are specialists (Defeo et al., 2009).

The Living Wave Riders: Mole Crabs and Coquina Clams

If you’ve ever noticed the wet sand suddenly shimmer or seem to move as a wave retreats, you’ve likely witnessed two of the swash zone’s most abundant residents.

Atlantic Mole Crabs (Emerita talpoida)

An Atlantic mole crab, in Surf City, NC, briefly exposed at the surface of the swash zone. Within seconds, these specialized crustaceans can bury themselves beneath the sand, where they spend most of their lives filtering food from the surf. | Image credit: johnnybirder, iNaturalist

Known locally as sand fleas, Atlantic mole crabs spend nearly their entire lives buried beneath the surface of the swash zone.

They are not true crabs. Instead, they belong to a group of highly specialized crustaceans adapted for life where waves break on the shore. Their bodies are smooth, streamlined, and shaped almost like a small bean. Using powerful rear legs, they can bury themselves in saturated sand in seconds (Abude et al., 2024).

When waves wash overhead, they extend feathery antennae into the water and filter microscopic plankton and organic particles from the surf (Abude et al., 2024).

Rather than remaining stationary, mole crabs occupy the constantly shifting swash zone, where food and oxygen are delivered by breaking waves. Their abundance makes them one of the most important food sources for shorebirds, fish, and ghost crabs (Abude et al., 2024).

Coquina Clams (Donax variabilis)

Sharing the same habitat is one of the most recognizable shells on Atlantic beaches.

Coquina clams are the tiny, brightly colored shells scattered across the tide line in shades of pink, yellow, purple, blue, orange, and white.

Most people only notice the shells.

The living animal beneath them is remarkably adapted to life in moving sand.

Coquinas live just beneath the surface of the swash zone where they filter microscopic algae and suspended particles from the water. As waves advance and retreat, they repeatedly rebury themselves, using a muscular foot to dig into the sand with astonishing speed (Ellers, 1995).

Like mole crabs, coquinas are adapted to the dynamic conditions of the swash zone. Their abundance provides food for fish, crabs, and shorebirds, making them a critical link between microscopic plankton and larger coastal predators (Wilson, 1999).

Standing at the water’s edge, it is easy to think the beach is motionless.

In reality, thousands of coquinas and mole crabs may be moving beneath your feet with every wave.

The Night Shift: Atlantic Ghost Crabs (Ocypode quadrata)

Higher on the beach, above the reach of most waves, another resident waits.

Atlantic ghost crabs spend daylight hours hidden inside deep burrows excavated into the sand. Their pale coloration blends almost perfectly with the beach, making them difficult to see unless they move.

Atlantic ghost crabs spend daylight hours hidden in burrows above the tide line. Their pale coloration provides excellent camouflage against the sand, making them surprisingly difficult to spot until they move. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

While the swash zone below is dominated by animals filtering food from the surf, ghost crabs are hunters and scavengers.

After sunset, they emerge to patrol the shoreline, feeding on mole crabs, coquina clams, stranded marine organisms, insects, carrion, and whatever other opportunities the beach provides (Wolcott, 1978).

Many beachgoers never see them at all. Instead, they notice the evidence they leave behind. Round burrow openings dot the upper beach. Fresh tracks crisscross the sand overnight and disappear with the next tide. Occasionally, a pale shape darts sideways through the beam of a flashlight before vanishing into darkness.

Those burrows tell a story of their own. Beaches with abundant ghost crab burrows often support richer communities of animals living both above and below the sand, which is why scientists sometimes use ghost crabs as one way of assessing beach condition and disturbance (Schlacher et al., 2016).

The next time you notice a round hole in the upper beach with a pile of freshly excavated sand nearby, you are likely looking at the entrance to a ghost crab burrow—and evidence that the beach is still very much alive after dark.

Between the Grains

The largest residents of the swash zone are only part of the story.

Beneath the surface lies an even larger community that most beachgoers never see. Between individual grains of sand are tiny water-filled spaces that form a hidden habitat known as the interstitial zone. To us, a handful of wet sand looks solid. To these organisms, it is an underwater landscape of tunnels, chambers, and passageways (Higgins & Thiel, 1988).

The beach is layered with hidden communities. From amphipods and ghost crabs higher on the shore to coquina clams and mole crabs at the water’s edge, different species occupy distinct zones shaped by waves, moisture, food availability, and shifting sand. | Image credit: Michel et al., 2016

Amphipods: The Cleanup Crew

The line of seaweed, shells, and debris left behind by the tide may look messy, but it is often one of the busiest places on the beach.

Hidden among the wrack, in the upper intertidal zone, are amphipods, small crustaceans often called Atlantic beach hoppers (Americorchestia longicornis). If you sift through a pile of damp seaweed or drift algae, you may catch a glimpse of them springing away before disappearing back into cover.

Much of what washes ashore eventually becomes food for something else. Amphipods feed on decaying seaweed, dead animals, and other organic material stranded by the tide. In doing so, they help break down material that would otherwise accumulate along the shoreline. They also become food themselves, supporting shorebirds, fish, and other invertebrates that forage along the beach (Dugan et al., 2003).

Polychaete Worms: Engineers Beneath the Sand

Most beachgoers never see the worms living beneath the tide line, but their work is happening constantly beneath the surface.

As polychaete worms burrow through the sand, they create tiny pathways that allow water and oxygen to penetrate deeper into the sediment. In many ways, they perform the same role that earthworms do in a garden, except their garden is the beach itself.

Some species spend their lives feeding on organic material trapped between the sand grains, such as Lugworms (Arenicolidae). Others hunt small crustaceans and worms moving through the sediment such as Bloodworms (Glyceridae) and Paddle Worms / Shimmy Worms (Nephtyidae). As they burrow, feed, and move through the beach, they continually mix the sand and help create conditions that allow countless other organisms to survive there (McLachlan & Defeo, 2018).

Ribbon Worms: Hidden Predators

Not every animal beneath the sand is feeding on algae, bacteria, or decaying material.

Ribbon worms (Nemertea) are predators, though few people ever realize they are there. Hidden beneath the surface, they hunt some of the same tiny animals that share the spaces between the sand grains, including small worms, crustaceans, and other invertebrates moving through the sediment (Thiel & Kruse, 2001).

Many possess a remarkable feeding structure called a proboscis that can be rapidly extended to capture prey (Thiel & Kruse, 2001).

Most beachgoers will never see a ribbon worm, yet they are part of the same hidden food web as the amphipods, copepods, and nematodes surrounding them. Even beneath a seemingly empty stretch of sand, animals are feeding, avoiding predators, and competing for resources every hour of the day.

Nematodes: Life at Microscopic Scale

If you could shrink yourself down and explore a handful of wet sand, the landscape would look very different.

What appears solid to us is actually filled with tiny spaces between the grains. Moving through those water-filled passages are microscopic animals called nematodes (phylum Nematoda).

These tiny roundworms feed on bacteria, algae, fungi, and organic matter coating the sand. Though nearly invisible, they are among the most abundant animals on many beaches and play an important role in breaking down organic material and recycling nutrients throughout the sediment (Coull, 1999; Schratzberger & Ingels, 2018).

Harpacticoid Copepods: Tiny Links in the Food Web

Sharing those same microscopic spaces are harpacticoid copepods (Paraleptastacus wilsoni), tiny crustaceans that spend their lives moving between individual sand grains.

They graze on algae and microbial films coating the sediment, feeding on resources too small for larger animals to use directly. In turn, they become prey for larger invertebrates and juvenile fishes.

Most beachgoers will never see a harpacticoid copepod. Yet every handful of wet sand may contain a community of animals like these, quietly connecting the microscopic world to the larger food web of the beach (Schratzberger & Ingels, 2018).

Individually, these animals are easy to overlook.

Collectively, they form much of the living foundation of the tide line. The coquinas, mole crabs, ghost crabs, fishes, and shorebirds visible along the shoreline all depend, directly or indirectly, on countless small interactions taking place beneath the sand.

Following the Birds

One of the easiest ways to observe this hidden ecosystem is not by looking down.

It is by looking up.Anyone who spends time on the beach has likely watched sanderlings (Calidris alba) racing along the edge of the surf. They dart forward as a wave retreats, stop suddenly to probe the sand, and then sprint away from the next incoming wave. A little farther up the beach, ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres) pick through wrack lines left behind by the tide. Along the surf edge, Eastern willets (Tringa semipalmata semipalmata) walk deliberately through the shallows, searching for movement beneath the water.

To many beachgoers, they are simply birds feeding along the shoreline.

What they are actually doing is reading the beach.

Each probe into the sand is a search for prey hidden beneath the surface. Mole crabs, small worms, amphipods, coquinas, and other invertebrates living within the tide line provide food for these birds (Dugan et al., 2003; Hubbard & Dugan, 2003).

The birds go where the food is.

When shorebirds gather along a stretch of beach, they are often revealing an ecosystem that would otherwise remain invisible. Their presence tells us that the sand beneath them is alive with prey, even if we cannot see it ourselves.

In many ways, shorebirds act as interpreters of the tide line. By watching where they feed, pause, and congregate, we gain a glimpse into the hidden community supporting them below.

Reading the Beach

From a distance, the tide line can seem almost empty. A narrow strip of wet sand separates the ocean from the rest of the beach. Waves arrive, waves leave, and little appears to change.

Spend a few minutes watching, however, and a different picture begins to emerge.

Shorebirds gather where the surf is most active. Tiny shells appear and disappear with the retreating waves. Fresh ghost crab burrows punctuate the upper beach. Even the wrack line left behind by the tide becomes a gathering place for scavengers and foraging birds.

What first appears to be a simple boundary between land and sea begins to look more like a busy shoreline neighborhood.

At first glance, the tide line can appear almost empty. Look a little longer, however, and the clues begin to emerge—feeding shorebirds, scattered shells, and the constant movement of the surf all hint at the hidden community living beneath the sand. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

The animals living here are responding to the same thing: the constant movement of the tide. Food arrives with the surf, becomes available for a brief moment, and is quickly claimed by whatever creature is best adapted to find it. Some filter it from the water. Some collect it from the sand. Others hunt the animals already feeding there.

Because these organisms live so closely tied to the conditions of the beach, changes in their numbers can provide clues about the habitat itself (Defeo et al., 2009). A shoreline where birds are feeding, ghost crab burrows remain active, and life continues to reveal itself at the edge of the surf is often a sign that this narrow strip of beach is supporting the community that depends upon it.

When those communities decline, the change may not be immediately obvious. Yet over time the beach can begin to feel quieter. Fewer birds stop to feed. Fewer burrows appear in the sand. The signs become harder to find. Those changes can ripple outward through the food web, affecting species both on the beach and beyond it (Peterson et al., 2006).

The Threshold

The next time you stand at the edge of the surf, watch where the waves pause before sliding back toward the sea.

It is easy to see this narrow strip of shoreline as a boundary. Ocean on one side. Land on the other.

But the tide line is not really a dividing line at all.

It is a place where both worlds meet.

With every passing wave, food, oxygen, and life arrive from the ocean. Beneath the sand, animals capture it, consume it, recycle it, and pass it on. Shorebirds search for it. Ghost crabs emerge after dark to hunt it. Countless organisms spend their entire lives within a space that is neither fully ocean nor fully land.

Most people walk across this strip of beach without ever noticing it.

Yet it is one of the busiest places along the coast.

The next time you see shells appearing and disappearing in the surf, a flock of sanderlings racing the tide, or ghost crab burrows scattered across the upper beach, remember that these are not separate observations. They are pieces of the same story.

What appears to be an empty stretch of wet sand is actually a living threshold—a place where ocean and land remain connected through countless interactions happening beneath every step.

And once you see it, it becomes difficult to look at the shoreline the same way again.

The tide line in Surf City, NC may appear to be little more than wet sand. Yet beneath every retreating wave lies a hidden community connecting ocean and land through countless interactions, most of them unseen. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

References

Abude, R. R., Lôbo-Hajdu, G., Moreira, D. A., & Cabrini, T. M. (2024). Sandy beach mole crabs (Decapoda: Hippidae: Emerita): A systematic review of the anthropic impacts, populations density, and conservation strategies. Marine Environmental Research, 202, 106745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106745

Coull, B. C. (1999). Role of meiofauna in estuarine soft‐bottom habitats. Australian Journal of Ecology, 24(4), 327-343. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.00979.x

Defeo, O., McLachlan, A., Schoeman, D. S., Schlacher, T. A., Dugan, J., Jones, A., Lastra, M., & Scapini, F. (2009). Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 81(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.022

Dugan, J. E., Hubbard, D. M., McCrary, M. D., & Pierson, M. O. (2003). The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of Southern California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58, 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7714(03)00045-3

Ellers, O. (1995). Behavioral control of swash-riding in the clam Donax variabilis. The Biological Bulletin, 189(2), 120-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/1542462

Hubbard, D. M., & Dugan, J. E. (2003). Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in Southern California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58, 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7714(03)00048-9

McLachlan, A., & Defeo, O. (2018). The ecology of sandy shores (3rd ed.). Academic Press.

P, H. R., & Thiel, H. (1988). Intro study meiofauna. Smithsonian Books (DC).

Peterson, C. H., Bishop, M. J., Johnson, G. A., D’Anna, L. M., & Manning, L. M. (2006). Exploiting beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: Benthic intertidal impacts propagating upwards to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 338(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.06.021

Pilkey, O. H., Rice, T. M., & Neal, W. J. (2014). How to read a North Carolina beach: Bubble holes, Barking sands, and rippled Runnels. UNC Press Books.

Schlacher, T. A., Lucrezi, S., Connolly, R. M., Peterson, C. H., Gilby, B. L., Maslo, B., Olds, A. D., Walker, S. J., Leon, J. X., Huijbers, C. M., Weston, M. A., Turra, A., Hyndes, G. A., Holt, R. A., & Schoeman, D. S. (2016). Human threats to sandy beaches: A meta-analysis of ghost crabs illustrates global anthropogenic impacts. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 169, 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.11.025

Schratzberger, M., & Ingels, J. (2018). Meiofauna matters: The roles of meiofauna in benthic ecosystems. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 502, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.007

Thiel, M., & Kruse, I. (2001). Status of the nemertea as predators in marine ecosystems. Hydrobiologia, 456(1-3), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013005814145

Wilson, J. G. (1999). Population dynamics and energy budget for a population of Donax variabilis (Say) on an exposed South Carolina beach. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 239(1), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-0981(99)00027-1

Wolcott, T. G. (1978). Ecological role of ghost crabs, Ocypode quadrata (Fabricius) on an ocean beach: Scavengers or predators? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 31(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(78)90137-5

June 5, 2026
The Fish That Follows the Tide: American Eels Along the Waters of Onslow County

Most people who see an American eel (Anguilla rostrata) for the first time do not think they are looking at a fish at all.

They appear suddenly in shallow blackwater creeks, beneath dock lights, beside culverts after rain, or slipping through spartina grass at dusk. Long and muscular, they move more like a snake than something belonging to a river. In muddy water they are usually seen only in fragments — a curve disappearing beneath tannin-dark current, or a ripple crossing the surface where something alive passed moments earlier.

Along the coast of Onslow County, American eels have likely moved through these waters longer than the marshes themselves have held their present shape. They pass through tidal creeks, estuaries, freshwater streams, flooded ditches, cypress swamps, and inland rivers, connecting habitats that often seem separate to us but function together as one living system.

And almost no one realizes that every eel seen here began life far out at sea.

Born Beyond the Horizon

The American eel’s life cycle spans thousands of miles, linking the Sargasso Sea, Atlantic coast, estuaries, marshes, rivers, and inland lakes through a single migration that can last decades. | Image credit: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Far offshore, beyond the continental shelf and beyond the visible horizon of North Carolina’s beaches, lies the Sargasso Sea — a warm, rotating gyre of Atlantic water bordered by ocean currents rather than land. This is where American eels spawn, though much of their reproduction still remains one of the great biological mysteries of the Atlantic Ocean (Béguer‐Pon et al., 2015).After hatching, eel larvae drift for months within the Gulf Stream. At this stage they do not yet resemble eels. They are thin, transparent, leaf-shaped organisms called leptocephali, nearly invisible against the open ocean (Wang & Tzeng, 2000).

Leptocephali, the larval stage of the American eel, drift within the Atlantic Ocean currents for months before transforming into glass eels and entering coastal estuaries. | Image credit: hunterefs, iNaturalist

As they approach the coastline, their bodies begin to transform. The broad leaf-like shape narrows into the familiar eel form. Their organs reorganize. Their muscles strengthen. By the time they arrive in estuaries along the Atlantic coast, they have become what scientists call glass eels — small, transparent juveniles that move into tidal rivers and marshes under the cover of darkness (Starks, 2026).

Glass eels, the transparent juvenile stage of the American eel, gather along coastlines before moving inland through estuaries, marshes, and rivers. | Image credit: W. O’Connor

At night in late winter and spring, these glass eels enter coastal waters by the thousands. Most people never notice them. But beneath bridge lights and along quiet marsh edges, tiny transparent bodies gather against the current, moving inland on tides that have repeated for thousands of years.

Some settle into estuaries. Others continue far upriver into freshwater creeks and reservoirs. A single eel may spend decades there before returning once again to the open Atlantic.

As they continue growing, American eels pass through a series of color changes that reflect different stages of their life cycle. Newly arrived glass eels are nearly transparent. Within months they develop pigmentation and become elvers, often showing olive, brown, or yellowish coloration. During the longest phase of their lives they are known as yellow eels, displaying yellow-brown to olive sides with lighter undersides while feeding and growing in estuaries, rivers, and wetlands for years or even decades (ASMFC, 2017; Haro et al., 2000). As they mature and prepare for their return migration to the Sargasso Sea, they transform into silver eels. Their bodies darken along the back, their sides become silvery, and their eyes enlarge — adaptations that help prepare them for life in the open ocean and their final spawning migration (Haro et al., 2000; Tesch & White, 2008).

American eels change dramatically throughout their lives, from transparent leptocephali and glass eels to yellow eels in estuaries and rivers before developing the silver coloration of spawning adults returning to the Sargasso Sea. | Image credit: C. Bowser & R. Papish

The Marsh at Night

American eels are largely nocturnal, which means many people living along the coast rarely realize how common they are.

After sunset, they emerge from submerged roots, oyster reefs, marsh undercuts, rock piles, and mud-bottom channels to feed. In tidal creeks around Onslow County, they move through habitats that shift constantly with salinity, rainfall, temperature, and tide.

Unlike many fish that specialize in one narrow environment, eels are remarkably flexible. They can tolerate freshwater, brackish estuaries, and saltwater marsh systems throughout different stages of life (Able, 2005).

This flexibility makes them important ecological connectors between habitats.

An eel feeding in an estuary may consume shrimp, small fish, crabs, worms, insect larvae, and carrion. Larger eels become predators capable of feeding on nearly anything they can overpower. In turn, they become prey themselves for river otters, wading birds, striped bass, sharks, alligators, ospreys, and larger coastal predators (MacGregor et al., 2009).

What appears at first to be a strange solitary fish is actually woven through multiple levels of the food web.

American eels help transfer energy through the ecosystem, linking marsh invertebrates, small fish, and larger predators with the waters of Onslow County. | Image credit: A. Mitchell

Ancient Currents and Modern Coastlines

And in a much deeper sense, eels also connect modern coastal ecosystems to ancient worlds that existed long before humans reshaped shorelines. Their lineage stretches back tens of millions of years, surviving repeated shifts in sea level, climate, and continental geography. Long before beach renourishment projects, before the Outer Banks existed in their present form, and even before many modern mammals evolved, ancestral eels were already moving between oceans and coastal rivers (Inoue et al., 2010).

That timeline overlaps surprisingly well with the broader environmental history explored in my earlier posts. During the Carboniferous Period over 300 million years ago, vast swamp forests covered portions of what would eventually become eastern North America, laying down the organic material that later formed coal deposits (Sahney et al., 2010). The world looked entirely different then, but the shallow coastal environments that support migratory fish today evolved from ancient marine systems shaped across those immense spans of geologic time.

By 66 million years ago — around the end-Cretaceous extinction that eliminated non-avian dinosaurs — early eel relatives already existed in ancient seas (Near et al., 2012). Modern American eels evolved much later, but their migratory strategy reflects something extraordinarily old: the continual exchange between ocean currents, estuaries, rivers, and wetlands.

Fossil eels resembling modern species appear in the geologic record tens of millions of years ago, reflecting a lineage that has persisted through changing oceans, shifting coastlines, and repeated cycles of environmental change. | Image credit: Fossil Forum

Beach renourishment, by contrast, exists on an almost microscopic timescale geologically. Most projects reshape shorelines over years or decades, temporarily altering sediment movement, inlet dynamics, turbidity, and nearshore habitat. Eels are resilient enough to survive natural coastal change — hurricanes, shifting barrier islands, overwash events, and migrating inlets that have continually transformed the Atlantic coast. But human-driven shoreline modification can compress those disturbances into shorter, more frequent intervals that affect how juvenile eels enter estuaries and move inland.

So while beach renourishment itself is modern, the habitats it alters are part of a coastal system assembled over millions of years — one that species like the American eel have been navigating since long before the present coastline existed.

Their ecological importance is recognized even within local fisheries. In many areas, crab pots are now designed with eel escapement openings that allow smaller American eels to exit traps rather than become unintended bycatch. These modifications help reduce eel mortality while acknowledging the species’ role in maintaining healthy estuarine ecosystems.

The Animal That Connects Rivers

Many coastal species remain tied to a single environment. Oyster reefs remain fixed in estuaries. Marsh periwinkle snails cling to grass stems. Flounder shift between nearshore and estuarine waters but remain marine fish.

American eels move between worlds.

A juvenile eel may travel from offshore Atlantic currents into a coastal marsh creek, then into freshwater rivers hundreds of miles inland before eventually returning to the Sargasso Sea years later to spawn. Very few animals along the Atlantic coast connect ecosystems across such enormous distances.

American eels connect ecosystems across the Atlantic Ocean, beginning life in the Sargasso Sea before dispersing into estuaries, rivers, lakes, and wetlands throughout eastern North America. } Image credit: L. Poirier

Because of this, eels transport energy and nutrients between habitats that otherwise remain loosely connected. Predators feeding on eels receive marine-derived nutrients that originated far offshore. When adult eels migrate back toward the Atlantic, they carry inland energy back toward the ocean system (Jessop et al., 2020).

Even freshwater mussels depend upon them.

Several mussel species release microscopic larvae called glochidia that temporarily attach to fish hosts while developing. Research in Mid-Atlantic rivers has shown that American eels are one of the most successful hosts for some native mussel species, helping sustain mussel populations throughout eastern river systems (Schwalb et al., 2013).

So beneath the surface, the eel is doing more than surviving for itself. It is helping move life through the watershed.

What Happens When Eels Decline

Globally, the American eel is listed as “endangered, but stable” on the IUCN Red List because of long-term population declines across much of its range (IUCN, 2023). In the United States, however, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded the species does not currently require federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission determined that their populations are largely depleted in U. S. waters and have recommended continued monitoring of their populations because their life cycle depends upon the health and connectivity of both freshwater and marine environments (ASMFC, 2026).

For centuries, rivers along the Atlantic coast held far larger eel populations than they do today.

In many parts of the eastern United States, dams and hydroelectric turbines block migration routes and kill adults moving back downstream toward the ocean. Those barriers have severely reduced eel access to inland habitat across major river systems (Haro et al., 2000).

Onslow County is different.

The New River estuary is not fed by large mountain rivers or controlled by dams upstream. It is a relatively closed coastal watershed shaped instead by rainfall, groundwater springs, blackwater creeks, tidal exchange, runoff, and low-gradient streams winding through wetlands and forests. Here, eel movement depends less on navigating massive river barriers and more on the health and connectivity of marshes, culverts, floodplains, tidal creeks, and shallow estuarine habitat.

That makes local environmental changes especially important.

Wetland loss, shoreline hardening, stormwater runoff, dredging, declining water quality, and altered tidal flow can fragment the smaller pathways eels rely upon throughout the watershed. Even undersized culverts or poorly designed drainage structures can interrupt movement between creeks and flooded wetlands during critical migration periods.

Barrier islands also shape the system eels enter.

Along the Onslow coast, shifting inlets, overwash events, and beach renourishment projects continually reshape the boundary between ocean and estuary. In some cases, renourishment can temporarily increase turbidity, bury nearshore habitat, or alter tidal exchange patterns affecting juvenile eel recruitment into estuarine creeks. At the same time, healthy barrier islands and functioning marsh systems help buffer salinity extremes, reduce erosion, and maintain the sheltered estuarine habitat young eels depend upon once they arrive from the Atlantic.

Because eels use so many habitats, their decline spreads outward through the ecosystem in ways people may not immediately notice.

River otters lose an important prey source in some waterways. Mussel reproduction declines where host fish disappear. Predators that once relied seasonally on eels shift toward other prey. The disappearance of a species that connects marshes, rivers, estuaries, and offshore currents weakens the ecological ties between those environments.

And unlike species that reproduce quickly, eels recover slowly.

An eel living beneath a dock in coastal North Carolina may already be older than the child fishing above it. Some females remain inland for decades before ever returning to spawn (Haro et al., 2000). Every interruption between inland waters and the sea disrupts a migration pattern older than modern coastlines themselves.

The Fish Most People Never See

On warm summer nights in coastal North Carolina, much of the estuary moves unseen.

Shrimp rise into the water column. Rays cross shallow mudflats beneath darkness. Juvenile fish gather around dock lights. Crabs emerge from oyster beds to forage with the tide.

And somewhere below that shifting water, an eel moves silently between habitats, carrying the Atlantic inland and returning inland waters back toward the sea.

Most people standing along the shoreline will never know it is there.

But the marsh still holds the traces of its passage. So do the river otters weaving through flooded reeds and the herons stalking the quiet creek edges at dusk.

The tidal creeks of Onslow County continue shaping themselves around an animal whose life still stretches beyond much of human observation — from blackwater rivers to the open Atlantic, and back again.

Hidden beneath dark water and shifting tides, American eels remain one of the Atlantic coast’s most remarkable connections between ocean, estuary, and river. | Image credit: E. Smith, iNaturalist

References

Able, K. W. (2005). A re-examination of fish estuarine dependence: Evidence for connectivity between estuarine and ocean habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 64(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.02.002

ASMFC. (2026). American Eel. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. https://asmfc.org/species/american-eel/

Béguer-Pon, M., Castonguay, M., Shan, S., Benchetrit, J., & Dodson, J. J. (2015). Direct observations of American eels migrating across the continental shelf to the Sargasso Sea. Nature Communications, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9705

Haro, A., Richkus, W., Whalen, K., Hoar, A., Busch, W., Lary, S., Brush, T., & Dixon, D. (2000). Population decline of the American eel: Implications for research and management. Fisheries, 25(9), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2000)025<0007:pdotae>2.0.co;2

Inoue, J. G., Miya, M., Miller, M. J., Sado, T., Hanel, R., Hatooka, K., Aoyama, J., Minegishi, Y., Nishida, M., & Tsukamoto, K. (2010). Deep-ocean origin of the freshwater eels. Biology Letters, 6(3), 363-366. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0989

Jessop, B. M. (2020). Oceanic environmental effects on American eel recruitment to the east river, Chester, Nova Scotia. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 12(4), 222-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10121

MacGregor, R., Casselman, J. M., Allen, W. A., Haxton, T., Dettmers, J. M., Mathers, A., LaPan, S., Pratt, T. C., Thompson, P., Stanfield, M., Marcogliese, L., & Dutil, J. D. (2009). Natural Heritage, Anthropogenic Impacts, and Biopolitical Issues Related to the Status and Sustainable Management of American Eel: A Retrospective Analysis and Management Perspective at the Population Level. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 69, 713-740. https://www.thelandbetween.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Anacat_Final_Final-reprint_-macgregor.pdf

Near, T. J., Eytan, R. I., Dornburg, A., Kuhn, K. L., Moore, J. A., Davis, M. P., Wainwright, P. C., Friedman, M., & Smith, W. L. (2012). Resolution of ray-finned fish phylogeny and timing of diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(34), 13698-13703. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206625109

Pike, C., Casselman, J., Crook, V., DeLucia, M. B., Jacoby, D., & Gollock, M. (2023). Anguilla rostrata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2023-1.RLTS.T191108A129638652

Sahney, S., Benton, M. J., & Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2010). Rainforest collapse triggered Carboniferous tetrapod diversification in Euramerica. Geology, 38(12), 1079-1082. https://doi.org/10.1130/g31182.1

Schwalb, A. N., Cottenie, K., Poos, M. S., & Ackerman, J. D. (2011). Dispersal limitation of unionid mussels and implications for their conservation. Freshwater Biology, 56(8), 1509-1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02587.x

Starks, C. (2026). Interstate Fisheries Management Program Overview: American Eel (May 2026). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. https://asmfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/4.AmericanEel_May-2026.pdf

Tesch, F. W., & White, R. J. (2008). The eel (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Wang, C., & Tzeng, W. (2000). The timing of metamorphosis and growth rates of American and European eel leptocephali: A mechanism of larval segregative migration. Fisheries Research, 46(1-3), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-7836(00)00146-6

May 29, 2026
The Life of a Barnacle
A microscopic epic of drift, decision, and devotion

On a winter walk along a pier in Surf City, the boards are bleached pale by sun and salt. Wind threads through the pilings. Gulls cry over gray water. At your feet, on a beam that has known decades of tides, something clings.

It is no bigger than a fingernail—chalky white, ridged like a tiny volcano. Along this coast, it is often an ivory barnacle—Amphibalanus eburneus—one of the small architects that quietly carpet pilings, docks, and seawalls from Topsail Sound to the Cape Fear. You could scrape it away with the edge of a shell. You probably have, absentmindedly, a hundred times.

But this barnacle is not debris. It is a biography written in calcium.

It began as a drifting dot—an invisible life in a moving sea. It crossed currents. It tasted the chemistry of places. And then, once, it chose.

The choice was final.

Barnacles are among the few animals on Earth that get exactly one chance to decide where they will live. No revisions. No migrations. No second homes. The place where a barnacle settles becomes the place where it will eat, grow, reproduce, and die. Its entire life collapses into a single coordinate on the map of the shore.

To understand a barnacle is to understand what it means to commit.

Ivory barnacles cling to a rock | Photo credit: Ken-ichi Ueda

Drift

A barnacle’s life begins in motion.

After fertilization, barnacle embryos hatch into nauplius larvae—tiny, triangular forms equipped with beating appendages and a simple eye (Anderson, 1994). They rise into the plankton, where they may drift for days to weeks, feeding and growing as tides and currents carry them outward (Chen et al., 2014).

The first larval stage of a barnacle, called a nauplius, is free-swimming and distinguished by a set of “horns.” | Photo credit: Robert Bachand

They are not aimless. Even at this scale, nauplii respond to light, salinity, and gravity. They migrate vertically through the water column, riding layers of current like conveyor belts. Their world is vast and borderless—and lethal.

Most barnacles die here.

Nauplii are eaten by copepods, jellyfish, fish larvae, and filter-feeding invertebrates. Each pulse of water is a gauntlet. Survival depends on number: millions released so that a few may reach shore.

After several molts, the nauplius enters its final larval form: the cyprid.

A late larval barnacle stage, the cyprid, has a bivalved shell of chitin and glands in its first antennae that are used to cement itself permanently to a hard substrate. | Photo credit: Robert Bachand

This is no longer a feeding animal. It is a vessel of stored energy, built for a single task—finding a place to live (Aldred & Clare, 2008).

The cyprid does not eat.

A clock begins.

Much of what we know about this hidden stage comes from decades of work on a close coastal relative, the striped barnacle – Amphibalanus amphitrite—a warm-water barnacle that clings to pilings and boat hulls worldwide, and whose larvae have become a window into how barnacles read the sea.

The striped barnacle (Amphibalanus amphitrite) is a globally distributed, non-native barnacle species that can spread via biofouling. In North Carolina waters it may occur outside its historical native range, but it isn’t widely recognized as a documented invasive species causing major ecological disruption. | Photo Credit: South Australia Marine Lab

The Narrow Window

Now the barnacle is no longer drifting blindly. It swims with intent. The cyprid probes surfaces with specialized antennules, “tasting” the chemistry of rock, wood, shell, and steel. It detects microbial biofilms—thin living skins that signal a surface has been stable long enough to support life (Qian et al., 2007). It senses the presence of other barnacles. It avoids surfaces that feel wrong.

This sensory world evolved in seas that were chemically simpler.

Today, cyprids swim through waters laced with heavy metals, hydrocarbons, microplastics, antifouling compounds, and nutrient-driven microbial shifts. These pollutants alter biofilms, mask settlement cues, and interfere with larval sensory systems. What once read clearly as “home” now arrives as static.

In degraded waters, cyprids often hesitate. They probe and retreat. They circle without committing.

But the clock does not pause.

Depending on species and temperature, a cyprid has only days to a few weeks before its stored energy is exhausted (Aldred & Clare, 2008). Each hour of searching burns fuel. When reserves fall too low, three futures unfold.

Some larvae simply die in the plankton and sink.

Some make a desperate choice—cementing themselves to marginal or unstable surfaces.

Others respond to distorted cues and settle where survival is unlikely.

This is not a failure of instinct. It is a mismatch between ancient sensory logic and a changed sea.

Long before we notice a shoreline growing quieter, its future has already thinned in the plankton.

Adverse intergenerational effects of microplastics might drastically reduce larval recruitment and threaten long-term zooplankton sustainability. | Photo credit: Yu & Chan, 2020.

The Choice

When the answer is yes, the barnacle performs one of the most irreversible acts in the animal kingdom.

It flips upside down.

Using its antennules, the cyprid secretes a permanent biological cement and glues its head to the surface (Kamino, 2016). This adhesive—among the strongest natural glues known—binds underwater to stone, metal, and polymer. Once cured, it cannot be undone.

There is no “testing.” No trial period.

This is the end of motion.

Within hours, the cyprid undergoes a radical metamorphosis. Its eyes degenerate. Its swimming limbs are restructured into feathery feeding appendages called cirri. Its body reorganizes around a new axis—rooted instead of free (Høeg & Møller, 2006).

The barnacle becomes architecture.

Many do not survive even this. Newly settled juveniles are grazed by small fish and invertebrates. Waves scrape them away before cement fully cures. The shoreline is littered with choices that did not last.

Those that remain begin to build something larger than themselves.

A Life Built Around the Tide

Most animals grow by addition. Barnacles grow by reinvention.

Shell plates rise around soft tissue, forming a fortress against wave impact, desiccation, and predation. Inside, muscles and organs reorganize to support a life of rhythmic feeding.

When submerged, the barnacle opens its opercular plates and unfurls its cirri—six pairs of jointed limbs that sweep the water in steady arcs. Each beat captures phytoplankton, detritus, and microcrustaceans (Southward, 2008).

An ivory barnacle (Amphibalanus eburneus) unfurls its cirri that sweep the water to feed. | © Peter J. Bryant

Metabolism slows. Heat and salt concentrate. Time folds inward. Some intertidal barnacles endure body temperatures exceeding 40°C (104°F) and prolonged oxygen deprivation (Harley, 2008). They wait for the sea to return.

Each tide is both a threat and nourishment.

Anatomy of a barnacle. | Photo Credit: AnimalFact.com

Time in Shell

Barnacles record time the way trees do.

Their shells grow in increments, forming visible growth bands that reflect seasonal cycles and environmental stress (Crisp, 1989). Storms leave signatures. Cold winters slow deposition. Productive summers thicken walls.

A barnacle on a piling may live five, ten, even twenty years (Southward, 2008). It will experience thousands of tides, hundreds of storms, and uncountable shifts in salinity and temperature—without ever moving.

Where foraminifera archive ancient seas in sediment, barnacles archive living shorelines in calcium.

They are clocks that cannot leave.

Looking at the head of the barnacle, where it attaches, growth rings can be seen. These concentric rings that represent cyclic growth periods are called ecdysal lines (also known as cuticular slips) and are associated with barnacle molting. | Photo credit: © Michael Ready Photography

Threshold Organisms

Barnacles occupy one of the most punishing habitats on Earth: the intertidal zone.

Here, organisms must withstand:
- Wave forces exceeding hurricane winds
- Repeated drying and rehydration
- Rapid temperature swings
- Salinity changes from rain and evaporation
- Intense ultraviolet exposure
Few animals can survive here. Barnacles not only survive—they structure the place.

Every barnacle on this shore is the consequence of a single larval decision made weeks earlier in open water.

They stabilize surfaces. They retain moisture. They create crevices for algae, worms, snails, and juvenile crustaceans. They shape temperature gradients and water flow. They turn bare rock into habitat.

When settlement falters—when larvae cannot read the shore or run out of time—the architecture of the coast changes.

Bare rock expands. Algal communities shift. Grazers lose shelter. Predators lose prey. The intertidal simplifies.

A piling with fewer barnacles is not merely cleaner. It is quieter. Biologically poorer and less layered.

The Lesson in Shell

Return now to that single barnacle on the pier.

It has no eyes. It has never seen the ocean. It will never know the gull overhead or the human who pauses above it. And yet it has shaped its entire existence around this exact sliver of coast.

It did not choose perfectly.

Some barnacles settle too high and starve. Some attach where sand scours them away. Some cement themselves beside competitors that outgrow and smother them.

There is no guarantee.

Only the act of choosing.

In a world that prizes movement, flexibility, and endless revision, the barnacle offers a quieter philosophy:

At some point, life must become a place.

To belong is not to drift forever. It is to accept exposure. To endure storms. To open when the tide allows. To grow, layer by layer, into the shape of your ground.

Every barnacle on this coast is a monument to a single irreversible decision.

And the sea is full of them.

Bay barnacle, Amphibalanus improvisus, on a rock in the New River | Photo credit: Alina Michele, iNaturalist, 2022

References

Aldred, N., & Clare, A. S. (2008). The adhesive strategies of cyprids and development of barnacle-resistant marine coatings. Biofouling, 24(5), 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010802256117

Anderson, D. T. (1994). Barnacles: Structure, function, development and evolution (1st ed.). Springer Dordrecht.

Chen, Z., Zhang, H., Wang, H., Matsumura, K., Wong, Y. H., Ravasi, T., & Qian, P. (2014). Quantitative Proteomics study of larval settlement in the barnacle balanus Amphitrite. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088744

Crisp, D. J. (1989). Tidally deposited bands in shells of barnacles and molluscs. Origin, Evolution, and Modern Aspects of Biomineralization in Plants and Animals, 103-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6114-6_8

Harley, C. D. (2008). Tidal dynamics, topographic orientation, and temperature-mediated mass mortalities on rocky shores. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 371, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07711

Høeg, J. T., & Møller, O. S. (2006). When similar beginnings lead to different ends: Constraints and diversity in cirripede larval development. Invertebrate Reproduction & Development, 49(3), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/07924259.2006.9652204

Kamino, K. (2016). Barnacle underwater attachment. Biological Adhesives, 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46082-6_7

Qian, P., Lau, S. C., Dahms, H., Dobretsov, S., & Harder, T. (2007). Marine Biofilms as mediators of colonization by marine Macroorganisms: Implications for antifouling and aquaculture. Marine Biotechnology, 9(4), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10126-007-9001-9

Southward, A. J. (2008). Barnacles: Keys and notes for the identification of British species. Field Studies Council. Yu, S., & Chan, B. K. (2020). Intergenerational microplastics impact the intertidal barnacle Amphibalanus Amphitrite during the planktonic larval and benthic adult stages. Environmental Pollution, 267, 115560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115560
January 17, 2026