No abstract

No abstract

Aim Topographic complexity is widely accepted as a key driver of biodiversity, but at the patch‐scale, complexity–biodiversity relationships may vary spatially and temporally according to the environmental stressors complexity mitigates, and the species richness and identity of potential colonists. Using a manipulative experiment, we assessed spatial variation in patch‐scale effects of complexity on intertidal biodiversity. Location 27 sites within 14 estuaries/bays distributed globally. Time period 2015–2017. Major taxa studied Functional groups of algae, sessile and mobile invertebrates. Methods Concrete tiles of differing complexity (flat; 2.5‐cm or 5‐cm complex) were affixed at low–high intertidal elevation on coastal defence structures, and the richness and abundance of the colonizing taxa were quantified after 12 months. Results The patch‐scale effects of complexity varied spatially and among functional groups. Complexity had neutral to positive effects on total, invertebrate and algal taxa richness, and invertebrate abundances. However, effects on the abundance of algae ranged from positive to negative, depending on location and functional group. The tidal elevation at which tiles were placed accounted for some variation. The total and invertebrate richness were greater at low or mid than at high intertidal elevations. Latitude was also an important source of spatial variation, with the effects of complexity on total richness and mobile mollusc abundance greatest at lower latitudes, whilst the cover of sessile invertebrates and sessile molluscs responded most strongly to complexity at higher latitudes. Conclusions After 12 months, patch‐scale relationships between biodiversity and habitat complexity were not universally positive. Instead, the relationship varied among functional groups and according to local abiotic and biotic conditions. This result challenges the assumption that effects of complexity on biodiversity are universally positive. The variable effect of complexity has ramifications for community and applied ecology, including eco‐engineering and restoration that seek to bolster biodiversity through the addition of complexity.

Climate change and coastal urbanization are driving the replacement of natural habitats with artificial structures and reclaimed land globally. These novel habitats are often poor surrogates for natural habitats. The application of integrated greening of grey infrastructure (IGGI) to artificial shorelines demonstrates how multifunctional structures can provide biodiversity benefits whilst simultaneously serving their primary engineering function. IGGI is being embraced globally, despite many knowledge gaps and limitations. It is a management tool to compensate anthropogenic impacts as part of the Mitigation Hierarchy. There is considerable scope for misuse and ‘greenwashing’ however, by making new developments appear more acceptable, thus facilitating the regulatory process. We encourage researchers to exercise caution when reporting on small‐scale experimental trials. We advocate that greater attention is paid to when experiments ‘fail’ or yield unintended outcomes. We advise revisiting, repeating and expanding on experiments to test responses over broader spatio‐temporal scales to improve the evidence base. Synthesis and applications. Where societal and economic demand makes development inevitable, particular attention should be paid to avoiding, minimizing and rehabilitating environmental impacts. Integrated greening of grey infrastructure (IGGI) should be implemented as partial compensation for environmental damage. Mutual benefits for both humans and nature can be achieved when IGGI is implemented retrospectively in previously developed or degraded environments. We caution, however, that any promise of net biodiversity gain from new developments should be scrutinized and any local ecological benefits set in the context of the wider environmental impacts. A ‘greened’ development will always impinge on natural systems, a reality that is much less recognized in the sea than on land.

Marine harbours are the focus of a diverse range of activities and subject to multiple anthropogenically induced pressures. Support for environmental management options aimed at improving degraded harbours depends on understanding the factors which influence people's perceptions of harbour environments. We used an online survey, across 12 harbours, to assess sources of variation people's perceptions of harbour health and ecological engineering. We tested the hypotheses: 1) people living near impacted harbours would consider their environment to be more unhealthy and degraded, be more concerned about the environment and supportive of and willing to pay for ecological engineering relative to those living by less impacted harbours, and 2) people with greater connectedness to the harbour would be more concerned about and have greater perceived knowledge of the environment, and be more supportive of, knowledgeable about and willing to pay for ecological engineering, than those with less connectedness. Across twelve locations, the levels of degradation and modification by artificial structures were lower and the concern and knowledge about the environment and ecological engineering were greater in the six Australasian and American than the six European and Asian harbours surveyed. We found that people's perception of harbours as healthy or degraded, but not their concern for the environment, reflected the degree to which harbours were impacted. There was a positive relationship between the percentage of shoreline modified and the extent of support for and people's willingness to pay indirect costs for ecological engineering. At the individual level, measures of connectedness to the harbour environment were good predictors of concern for and perceived knowledge about the environment but not support for and perceived

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract