Maximizing the benefits of oyster reef restoration for finfish and their fisheries

Gilby, Ben L.; Olds, Andrew D.; Peterson, Charles H.; Connolly, Rod M.; Voss, Christine M.; Bishop, Melanie J.; Elliott, Michael; Grabowski, Jonathan H.; Ortodossi, Nicholas L.; Schlacher, Thomas A.

doi:10.1111/faf.12301

Cited by 63 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 129 publications

(260 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Enhancing the abundance and/or diversity of fish assemblages is a goal stated in oyster reef restoration projects globally (Zu Ermgassen et al ; Gilby et al ). The findings of our study provide further evidence to support the use of artificially created oyster reefs to restore multiple aspects of coastal fish assemblages and highlight the importance of considering project design and siting to maximize these derived benefits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

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: Discussionmentioning

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

“…Marine ecosystem restoration required to offset biodiversity in order to comply with an environmental policy (Jacob et al, 2018) is a legislative (or technocratic) motivation. The provision of ecosystem services is an important pragmatic motivation worldwide, for example community-based restoration of mangroves in Indonesia for storm protection (Brown et al, 2014), and oyster and coral reef restoration for fisheries production (Gilby et al, 2018).…”

Section: Motivations For Engaging In Marine Coastal Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priorities and Motivations of Marine Coastal Restoration Research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active restoration is becoming an increasingly important conservation intervention to counteract the degradation of marine coastal ecosystems. Understanding what has motivated the scientific community to research the restoration of marine coastal ecosystems and how restoration research projects are funded is essential if we want to scale-up restoration interventions to meaningful extents. Here, we systematically review and synthesize data to understand the motivations for research on the restoration of coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, saltmarsh, and oyster reefs. We base this analysis off a published database of marine restoration studies, originally designed to estimate the cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration, derived from mostly scientific studies published in peer-reviewed and some gray literature. For the present study, the database was updated with fields aimed at assessing the motivations, outcomes, and funding sources for each project. We classify restoration motivations into five categories: biotic, experimental, idealistic, legislative, and pragmatic. Moreover, we evaluate the variables measured and outcomes reported by the researchers and evaluate whether projects adhered to the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER) standards for the practice of ecological restoration. The most common motivation of the scientific community to study restoration in marine coastal ecosystems was experimental i.e., to seek experimental data to answer ecological research questions or improve restoration approach, as expected since mostly peer-reviewed literature was evaluated here. There were differences in motivations among the five coastal ecosystems. For instance, biodiversity enhancement was the most common case for a biotic motivation in mangrove restoration projects. The most common metrics evaluated were growth/productivity, survivorship, habitat function, physical attributes, and reproduction. For most ecosystems, ecological outcomes were frequently reported, with socioeconomic implications of the restoration rarely mentioned, except for mangroves. Projects were largely funded by governmental Bayraktarov et al. Marine Restoration Motivations grants with some investment from private donations, non-governmental organizations, and the involvement of volunteers. Our findings and database provide critical data to align future research of the scientific community with the real social, economic and policy needs required to scale-up marine coastal restoration projects.

show abstract

“…However, the difference between these original criteria for guiding site selection, and assessing occupancy by fish and decapod crustaceans, is that the characteristics of the species assemblage using a reef may be dependent on variables that do not necessarily limit oyster reef development (e.g., structural complexity). As a result, better quantification of occupancy of oyster reefs by fish and decapod crustaceans would significantly help in predicting effects of reef complexity, or location (Gilby et al, 2018).…”

Section: Reef Restoration Monitoring and Benchmarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oyster Reefs in Northern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries Harbor Diverse Fish and Decapod Crustacean Assemblages: A Meta-Synthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oyster reefs provide habitat for numerous fish and decapod crustacean species that mediate ecosystem functioning and support vibrant fisheries. Recent focus on the restoration of eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reefs stems from this role as a critical ecosystem engineer. Within the shallow estuaries of the northern Gulf of Mexico (nGoM), the eastern oyster is the dominant reef building organism. This study synthesizes data on fish and decapod crustacean occupancy of oyster reefs across nGoM with the goal of providing management and restoration benchmarks, something that is currently lacking for the region. Relevant data from 23 studies were identified, representing data from all five U.S. nGoM states over the last 28 years. Cumulatively, these studies documented over 120,000 individuals from 115 fish and 41 decapod crustacean species. Densities as high as 2,800 ind m −2 were reported, with individual reef assemblages composed of as many as 52 species. Small, cryptic organisms that occupy interstitial spaces within the reefs, and sampled using trays, were found at an average density of 647 and 20 ind m −2 for decapod crustaceans and fishes, respectively. Both groups of organisms were comprised, on average, of 8 species. Larger-bodied fishes captured adjacent to the reef using gill nets were found at an average density of 6 ind m −2 , which came from 23 species. Decapod crustaceans sampled with gill nets had a much lower average density, <1 ind m −2 , and only contained 2 species. On average, seines captured the greatest number of fish species (n = 33), which were made up of both facultative residents and transients. These data provide general gear-specific benchmarks, based on values currently found in the region, to assist managers in assessing nekton occupancy of oyster reefs, and assessing trends or changes in status of oyster reef associated nekton support. More explicit reef descriptions (e.g., rugosity, height, area, adjacent habitat) would allow for more precise benchmarks as these factors are important in determining nekton assemblages, and sampling efficiency.

show abstract

Maximizing the benefits of oyster reef restoration for finfish and their fisheries

Cited by 63 publications

References 129 publications

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Priorities and Motivations of Marine Coastal Restoration Research

Oyster Reefs in Northern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries Harbor Diverse Fish and Decapod Crustacean Assemblages: A Meta-Synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About