Landscape context modifies the rate and distribution of predation around habitat restoration sites

Duncan, Cassandra K.; Gilby, Ben L.; Olds, Andrew D.; Connolly, Rod M.; Ortodossi, Nicholas L.; Henderson, Christopher; Schlacher, Thomas A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.028

Cited by 16 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mean predation estimates ranged between 13 and 81% likelihood of predation, with mean scavenging rates between 19 and 100% consumption (Table 2). Predation at restoration sites was double that at nearby reference sites (see Duncan et al 2019 for more details), and scavenging rates were 32% higher (Fig. S4).…”

Section: Patterns In Ecological Benefits Of Oyster Reef Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The settlement and growth of oysters is controlled by environmental conditions such as tide, salinity, turbidity, and temperature ranges, thereby requiring that oyster reefs be restored strategically in landscapes (Lenihan et al 1996;Baggett et al 2015). There is mounting evidence that landscape context also matters for restored oyster reefs in terms of enhancing fishes, fisheries, and key ecological functions (Grabowski et al 2005;Duncan et al 2019;Gilby et al 2019). These potentially different spatial requirements for fishes, ecological functions, and oysters means that locating places in estuaries that allow for successful reef development, as well as maximizing fish abundance and diversity, and ecological functions, is sometimes challenging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Gilby

Olds

Duncan

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration principally seeks to restore lost or degraded ecosystems. Restoration can, however, also deliver a suite of wider ecological, social, and economic benefits. To optimize performance it is, therefore, important to plan the design and placement of restoration initiatives with a view to maximizing joint effects on ecosystems, animal populations, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. We measured the effects of multiple (13) restored oyster reefs on a suite of restoration benefits (oyster settlement and growth, fish diversity and abundance, the ecological functions of scavenging and predation) in the Noosa River estuary, Australia, and used distribution models to identify potential restoration sites with the greatest overall benefits. Oysters recruited to reefs, and reefs enhanced the diversity and abundance of fishes and had higher rates of ecological functions than control sites. However, the growth of oyster reefs was most correlated with the proximity of restoration sites to urbanized shorelines and the estuary mouth, and the area of mangroves around the site. By contrast, fish diversity and abundance, and the rates of ecological functions, were typically negatively correlated with the proximity of reefs to both mangroves and seagrasses. This complex spatial mosaic resulted in distinct areas predicted to achieve all restoration benefits that were significantly smaller than the total area that could be restored. Applying a systematic and defensible method to identify potential restoration sites that maximize multiple benefits while lowering costs is a sensible social, economic, and ecological strategy.

show abstract

Section: Patterns In Ecological Benefits Of Oyster Reef Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Gilby

Olds

Duncan

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The spatial configuration of habitat patches within marine networks is a key consideration for managers interested in improving the success of larval dispersal across marine networks [40]. The performance of restored habitats is also predicted to depend on the placement of restoration initiatives at sites with configurations that enhance the exchange of energy or individuals with other habitat patches [47,49]. Landscape configuration can also be used to predict movement patterns of important waterbird species, which help to maintain ecosystem functioning in fragmented landscapes [50].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being Well-Connected Pays in a Disturbed World: Enhanced Herbivory in Better-Linked Habitats

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seascapes are typically comprised of multiple components that are functionally linked by the movement of organisms and fluxes of matter. Changes to the number and spatial arrangement of these linkages affect biological connectivity that, in turn, can alter ecological functions. Herbivory is one such function, pivotal in controlling excessive algal growth when systems become disturbed. Here, we used microcosm experiments to test how the change to connectivity affects herbivory under different levels of disturbance. We applied network theory to measure types of connectivity at different scales (patch and whole system) and quantified herbivory by a crustacean mesograzer exposed to excess algae, mimicking pulse and press disturbances. We demonstrate that greater connectivity significantly enhances herbivory in Clibanarius virescens: Both the number of linkages and their spatial arrangement interact to shape the response of herbivory in systems to disturbance. Our findings highlight the value of controlled experiments for advancing theories about the potential effects of connectivity on important ecological functions, such as herbivory, and justify further investigation to measure how connectivity might affect the resilience of ecosystems. We posit that the variation in the type, and scale, of spatial linkages might have profound consequences for managing the capacity of ecosystems to respond to disturbance.

show abstract

“…Second, we included variables relating to the water depth and seascape context of monitoring sites, including the proximity of sites to the estuary mouth and mangroves, and the extent of mangroves within 1,000 m of each site. These spatial variables have been shown in previous studies in the estuaries of this region to be significant predictors of fish assemblage composition and distribution (Gilby et al 2018a), including at other shellfish reef restoration projects within the region (Duncan et al 2019;Gilby et al 2019). Finally, we included variables relating to the water quality of each site during each sampling event, including water column turbidity, salinity, and temperature.…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attraction versus production in restoration: spatial and habitat effects of shellfish reefs for fish in coastal seascapes

Gilby

Olds

Chapman

et al. 2021

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restored shellfish reefs provide valuable habitat for fish, but it is not clear how different approaches affect performance, and either promote the development of new fish populations (i.e. “production”) or simply attract individuals from the broader seascape (i.e. “attraction”). We measured the effects of a 1.5 ha shellfish reef restoration site on fish assemblages in Pumicestone Passage in eastern Australia, which contains replicates of six different restoration units: shell patch reefs, crates of shells, and biodegradable matrix, and each had replicates with and without live oysters. Fish were surveyed before restoration and then every 6 months for 30 months with baited (at restoration and control sites) and unbaited (at 106 sites across the seascape to detect potential fish attraction, and at the different restoration units) underwater cameras. Shellfish reef restoration represents an addition to the carrying capacity of Pumicestone Passage for fish for two key reasons. First, restoration significantly enhanced the diversity and abundance of fish assemblages and the density of harvestable fish at the restoration site by 3.8, 10.7, and 16.4 times, respectively. Second, fish distributions across the broader seascape did not change in response to succession at the restoration site. Fish assemblages did not differ between restoration units or the presence or absence of oysters. These findings further support the notion that restored shellfish reefs significantly enhance fish abundance and diversity and that restored reefs can enhance the overall carrying capacity of seascapes for fish, rather than simply centralizing them at restoration sites.

show abstract

Landscape context modifies the rate and distribution of predation around habitat restoration sites

Cited by 16 publications

References 70 publications

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Being Well-Connected Pays in a Disturbed World: Enhanced Herbivory in Better-Linked Habitats

Attraction versus production in restoration: spatial and habitat effects of shellfish reefs for fish in coastal seascapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About