Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions

Bishop, Melanie J.; Mayer‐Pinto, Mariana; Airoldi, Laura; Firth, Louise B.; Morris, Rebecca L.; Loke, Lynette H.L.; Hawkins, Stephen J.; Naylor, Larissa A.; Coleman, Ross A.; Chee, Su Yin; Dafforn, Katherine A.

doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.021

Cited by 303 publications

(213 citation statements)

References 300 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the results of this study indicate that eco‐engineering interventions enhance the abundance and richness of ecological communities associated with urban infrastructure, it is unclear to what extent these interventions mitigate the impact of replacing natural with artificial habitat. In addition to local‐scale impacts on biodiversity, urban infrastructure can impact ecological processes over larger scales by modifying ecological connectivity (Bishop et al., ) and through the cumulative effects of multiple developments (Dethier et al., ). Given that eco‐engineering interventions are unlikely to fully compensate for impacts of urban infrastructure, the feasibility of “nature‐based” approaches, which entail restoration, conservation or creation of habitats that provide the desired functions of infrastructure, should first be investigated prior to the decision to build new structures (Dethier et al., ; Sutton‐Grier et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Urban infrastructure impacts on natural ecosystems in a variety of ways, including habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as modification of ecological connectivity, ecosystem functioning and services, and the physico‐chemical environment (Bishop et al., ; Fischer & Lindenmayer, ; LaPoint, Balkenhol, Hale, Sadler, & Ree, ; McKinney, ). The net effect is urbanised ecosystems that are fundamentally different in structure and function to the natural habitat which they displace (Airoldi, Turon, Perkol‐Finkel, & Rius, ; Gittman, Scyphers, Smith, Neylan, & Grabowski, ; Heery et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eco‐engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit?

Strain

Olabarria

Mayer‐Pinto

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

179

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. Along urbanised coastlines, urban infrastructure is increasingly becoming the dominant habitat. These structures are often poor surrogates for natural habitats, and a diversity of eco-engineering approaches have been trialled to enhance their biodiversity, with varying success.2. We undertook a quantitative meta-analysis and qualitative review of 109 studies to compare the efficacy of common eco-engineering approaches (e.g. increasing texture, crevices, pits, holes, elevations and habitat-forming taxa) in enhancing the biodiversity of key functional groups of organisms, across a variety of habitat settings and spatial scales.3. All interventions, with one exception, increased the abundance or number of species of one or more of the functional groups considered. Nevertheless, the magnitude of effect varied markedly among groups and habitat settings. In the intertidal, interventions that provided moisture and shade had the greatest effect on the richness of sessile and mobile organisms, while water-retaining features had the greatest effect on the richness of fish. In contrast, in the subtidal, small-scale depressions which provide refuge to new recruits from predators and other environmental stressors such as waves, had higher abundances of sessile organisms while elevated structures had higher numbers and abundances of fish. The taxa that responded most positively to eco-engineering in the intertidal were those whose body size most closely matched the dimensions of the resulting intervention. Synthesis and applications. The efficacy of eco-engineering interventions variesamong habitat settings and functional groups. This indicates the importance of developing site-specific approaches that match the target taxa and dominant stressors. Furthermore, because different types of intervention are effective at enhancing different groups of organisms, ideally a range of approaches should be applied simultaneously to maximise niche diversity. K E Y W O R D Sartificial structure, crevice, depression, eco-engineering interventions, habitat-forming species, microhabitat, protrusion, rockpool, seeding, urban infrastructure

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eco‐engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit?

Strain

Olabarria

Mayer‐Pinto

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

179

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They can provide evidence for the ‘spillover’ and ‘source–sink’ processes mentioned above, currently largely investigated with indirect approaches using field survey methods. Few population studies have examined the links, such as connectivity patterns, between marine NIS populations established in artificial (other than farms) and wild habitats (Bishop et al., 2017; Fauvelot, Bertozzi, Costantini, Airoldi, & Abbiati, 2009). Nonetheless, this knowledge is of paramount importance for the development of effective management and mitigation measures and, in particular, to define priority targets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population genomics of the introduced and cultivated Pacific kelp Undaria pinnatifida: Marinas—not farms—drive regional connectivity and establishment in natural rocky reefs

Guzinski

Ballenghien

Daguin‐Thiébaut

et al. 2018

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ports and farms are well‐known primary introduction hot spots for marine non‐indigenous species (NIS). The extent to which these anthropogenic habitats are sustainable sources of propagules and influence the evolution of NIS in natural habitats was examined in the edible seaweed Undaria pinnatifida, native to Asia and introduced to Europe in the 1970s. Following its deliberate introduction 40 years ago along the French coast of the English Channel, this kelp is now found in three contrasting habitat types: farms, marinas and natural rocky reefs. In the light of the continuous spread of this NIS, it is imperative to better understand the processes behind its sustainable establishment in the wild. In addition, developing effective management plans to curtail the spread of U. pinnatifida requires determining how the three types of populations interact with one another. In addition to an analysis using microsatellite markers, we developed, for the first time in a kelp, a ddRAD‐sequencing technique to genotype 738 individuals sampled in 11 rocky reefs, 12 marinas, and two farms located along ca. 1,000 km of coastline. As expected, the RAD‐seq panel showed more power than the microsatellite panel for identifying fine‐grained patterns. However, both panels demonstrated habitat‐specific properties of the study populations. In particular, farms displayed very low genetic diversity and no inbreeding conversely to populations in marinas and natural rocky reefs. In addition, strong, but chaotic regional genetic structure, was revealed, consistent with human‐mediated dispersal (e.g., leisure boating). We also uncovered a tight relationship between populations in rocky reefs and those in nearby marinas, but not with nearby farms, suggesting spillover from marinas into the wild. At last, a temporal survey spanning 20 generations showed that wild populations are now self‐sustaining, albeit there was no evidence for local adaptation to any of the three habitats. These findings highlight that limiting the spread of U. pinnatifida requires efficient management policies that also target marinas.

show abstract

“…In such cases, a seascape approach to management is needed. This approach is not only true for natural seascapes, but for modified seascapes with artificial structures, which affect connectivity (Barbier et al, 2008;Bishop et al, 2017;Heery et al, 2017).…”

Section: Seascape Connective Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities for Protecting and Restoring Tropical Coastal Ecosystems by Utilizing a Physical Connectivity Approach

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectively managing human pressures on tropical seascapes (mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and coral reefs) requires innovative approaches that go beyond the ecosystem as the focal unit. Recent advances in scientific understanding of long-distance connectivity via extended ecosystem engineering effects and on-going rapid developments in monitoring and data-sharing technologies provide viable tools for novel management approaches that use positive across-ecosystem interactions (for example, hydrodynamics). Scientists and managers can now use this collective knowledge to develop monitoring and restoration protocols that are specialized for cross ecosystem fluxes (waves, sediments, nutrients) on a site-specific basis for connected tropical seascape (mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and coral reefs).

show abstract

Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions

Cited by 303 publications

References 300 publications

Eco‐engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit?

Eco‐engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit?

Population genomics of the introduced and cultivated Pacific kelp Undaria pinnatifida: Marinas—not farms—drive regional connectivity and establishment in natural rocky reefs

Opportunities for Protecting and Restoring Tropical Coastal Ecosystems by Utilizing a Physical Connectivity Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About