Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats

Gittman, Rachel K.; Peterson, Charles H.; Currin, Carolyn A.; Fodrie, F. Joel; Piehler, Michael F.; Bruno, John F.

doi:10.1890/14-0716

Cited by 148 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Living shorelines employ long-distance, intraspecific facilitation in the restoration scheme, whereby an offshore restored oyster reef attenuates wave energy and allows the persistence and potential expansion of a landward salt marsh where one might not be able to exist on its own. Living shorelines have been shown to enhance the services provided by coastal ecosystems [71,72]. Furthermore, the promotion of bivalve aquaculture in eutrophic areas has been proposed as a mechanism for promoting the restoration of seagrass beds via the reduction of water column turbidity [73], while at the same time providing an economic and social benefit.…”

Section: Recommendations For Coastal Habitat Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Coastal ecosystems have drastically declined in coverage and condition across the globe. To combat these losses, marine conservation has recently employed habitat restoration as a strategy to enhance depleted coastal ecosystems. For restoration to be a successful enterprise, however, it is necessary to identify and address potential knowledge gaps and review whether the field has tracked scientific advances regarding best practices. This enables managers, researchers, and practitioners alike to more readily establish restoration priorities and goals. We synthesized the peer-reviewed, published literature on habitat restoration research in salt marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrasses to address three questions related to restoration efforts: (i) How frequent is cross-sector authorship in coastal restoration research? (ii) What is the geographic distribution of coastal restoration research? and (iii) Are abiotic and biotic factors equally emphasized in the literature, and how does this vary with time? Our vote-count survey indicated that one-third of the journal-published studies listed authors from at least two sectors, and 6% listed authors from all three sectors. Across all habitat types, there was a dearth of studies from Africa, Asia, and South America. Finally, despite many experimental studies demonstrating that species interactions can greatly affect the recovery and persistence of coastal foundation species, only one-fourth of the studies we examined discussed their effects on restoration. Combined, our results reveal gaps and discrepancies in restoration research that should be addressed in order to further propel coastal restoration science.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations For Coastal Habitat Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the current levels of shoreline hardening and the projected growth of coastal populations, understanding the ecological effects of these structures is crucial for developing sustainable coastal management and climate-adaptation strategies (Titus et al 1998, Gittman et al 2015). Specifically, understanding how shoreline hardening affects biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is necessary for evaluating the consequences of these activities on associated ecosystem services, such as fisheries production, property protection, and water quality benefits, to coastal communities (Arkema et al 2015, Scyphers et al 2015, Gittman et al 2016). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis

Gittman¹,

Scyphers²,

Smith³

et al. 2016

BioScience

Self Cite

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protecting coastal communities has become increasingly important as their populations grow, resulting in increased demand for engineered shore protection and hardening of over 50% of many urban shorelines. Shoreline hardening is recognized to reduce ecosystem services that coastal populations rely on, but the amount of hardened coastline continues to grow in many ecologically important coastal regions. Therefore, to inform future management decisions, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing the ecosystem services of biodiversity (richness or diversity) and habitat provisioning (organism abundance) along shorelines with versus without engineered-shore structures. Seawalls supported 23% lower biodiversity and 45% fewer organisms than natural shorelines. In contrast, biodiversity and abundance supported by riprap or breakwater shorelines were not different from natural shorelines; however, effect sizes were highly heterogeneous across organism groups and studies. As coastal development increases, the type and location of shoreline hardening could greatly affect the habitat value and functioning of nearshore ecosystems.

show abstract

“…For example, sea walls and bulkheads provide less physically complex habitats, as compared with natural shorelines, and generally support fewer species of benthic fauna, mobile crustaceans and fish [4][5][6][7][8]. Such anthropogenic hardening of shorelines not only destroys natural features and biological communities, but it also alters the transport of sediment, disrupting the balance of accretion and erosion of materials carried along the shoreline by wave action and long-shore currents [9].…”

Section: Biodiversity and International Designationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Loss and Current Rehabilitation of Shoreline Habitat along an Urban-Industrial River—Detroit River, Michigan, USA

Hartig

Bennion

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the historical loss and current shoreline habitat rehabilitation efforts along the urban-industrial Detroit River using geographical information system methods and a shoreline survey. This study found a 97% loss of historical coastal wetlands to human development. By 1985, 55% of the U.S. mainland shoreline had been hardened with steel sheet piling or concrete breakwater that provide limited habitat. Since 1995, 19 projects were implemented, improving 4.93 km of shoreline habitat. A comparison of the 1985 and 2015 georeferenced aerial imagery showed that 2.32 km of soft shoreline was also converted to hard shoreline during this timeframe. Of the 19 projects surveyed, 11 representing 3.35 km made habitat improvements to shoreline that was already georeferenced as "soft", three representing 360 m converted shoreline from "hard" to "soft", and five representing 1.22 km added incidental habitat to hardened shoreline. Even with the addition of 1.58 km of new soft shoreline and incidental habitat, there was an overall net loss of 0.74 km of soft shoreline over the 30-year timeframe. To reach the "good" state of at least 70% soft shoreline, an additional 12.1 km of soft shoreline will have to be added. This confirms that shoreline hardening continues despite the best efforts of resource managers and conservation organizations. Resource managers must become opportunistic and get involved up front in urban waterfront redevelopment projects to advocate for habitat. Incremental progress will undoubtedly be slow following adaptive management.

show abstract

Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats

Cited by 148 publications

References 62 publications

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis

Historical Loss and Current Rehabilitation of Shoreline Habitat along an Urban-Industrial River—Detroit River, Michigan, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About