Multi-habitat seascape restoration: optimising marine restoration for coastal repair and social benefit

McAfee, Dominic; Patrick, Ruth; Jones, Alice R.; Gillanders, Bronwyn M.; Mellin, Camille; Nagelkerken, Ivan; Nursey‐Bray, Melissa; Baring, Ryan; Silva, Graziela Miot da; Tanner, Jason E.; Connell, Sean D.

doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.910467

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The influence of different habitats on oyster reef communities also provides opportunities for co-restoration with other foundation species (seagrass and mangroves; e.g. McAfee et al 2022) and landscape-scale management approaches to further tailor the communities that establish.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat‐setting affects biodiversity while predation determines oyster survival on experimental oyster reefs

Hart,

Smith,

Poore

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foundation species are being restored into inherently variable landscapes with multiple, interspersed habitats. However, understanding of the influence of different neighbouring habitats on community assembly and the survival of restored species is limited, despite their significant potential to affect restoration outcomes. We tested how habitat‐setting (being next to seagrass, seagrass and mangroves, or unvegetated sediments) and predation (by meso‐ and/or large predators) influenced macroinvertebrate community assembly and the survival of juvenile Sydney rock oysters (Saccostrea glomerata) on experimental oyster reef units in the Port Hacking estuary, New South Wales, Australia. Each habitat‐setting produced a distinct macroinvertebrate community on experimental reefs, whereas predation had limited effects on community structure. Juvenile oysters were instead highly predated everywhere, and oyster predation was dominated by the large, transient fish Acanthropagrus australis. Our findings allow practitioners to predict and tailor the communities which establish on restored oyster reefs by strategically placing them next to different habitats. If sites have a high predation risk but require seeding for reefs to establish, then caging or complex substrates must be used to increase seeded oyster survival.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat‐setting affects biodiversity while predation determines oyster survival on experimental oyster reefs

Hart,

Smith,

Poore

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been showed that where multiple interconnected habitats are co‐restored, their positive interactions mutually benefit each other to stabilize and even accelerate ecosystem recovery (McAfee et al, 2022a). This has been well documented in case studies from South Australia, which showed how constructed boulder reefs provide opportunities to co‐restore shellfish and kelp forests, while stabilizing sediment for seagrass recovery.…”

Section: Envisioning a Restoration‐focused Eb‐msp Framework Through E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, considering the interconnected multi‐habitat approach also gives more chance to increase the connectivity between carbon source and sink habitats (e.g. between adjacent kelp forests and seagrass, respectively) and, through enhanced organic carbon transfer and burial, maximize the carbon sequestration potential (Smale et al, 2018; McAfee et al, 2022a).…”

Section: Envisioning a Restoration‐focused Eb‐msp Framework Through E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…programme being undertaken in the Solent (UK), where active restoration of oyster reefs(Collins et al, 2022) is coupled to passive restoration provided by restrictions on bottom trawling and dredging, along with restoration of riparian habitats that result in improved water quality in estuarine/nearshore waters. A melded EB-MSP and restoration framework thus makes it possible to optimize connectivity by considering the big picture and the restoration opportunities at the landscape/seascape scale.It has been showed that where multiple interconnected habitats are co-restored, their positive interactions mutually benefit each other to stabilize and even accelerate ecosystem recovery(McAfee et al, 2022a). This has been well documented in case studies from South Australia, which showed how constructed boulder reefs provide opportunities to co-restore shellfish and kelp forests, while stabilizing sediment for seagrass recovery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Link marine restoration to marine spatial planning through ecosystem‐based management to maximize ocean regeneration

Manea

Agardy²,

Bongiorni

2023

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The speed at which marine and coastal ecosystems are being degraded due to cumulative impacts limits the effectiveness of conservation strategies. To abate ocean degradation and allow ocean regeneration, conservation planning needs to be improved and ecological restoration will be needed. This study explores the potential of incorporating restoration into marine spatial planning (MSP) anchored to ecosystem‐based management (EBM), termed EB‐MSP, for maximizing ocean regeneration. This perspective explicitly brings both passive and active restorations into EB‐MSP in a broad and holistic framework for achieving the recovery of ocean ecosystems, their functions and their valuable services. By proposing a restoration‐focused EB‐MSP framework, we highlight the co‐benefits of interlinking MSP and marine restoration through the EBM core principles. Such benefits include a scaling‐up of restoration effectiveness, a greater guarantee that sustainability and conservation goals will be met and improvements in MSP as an integrated planning tool with the potential to address climate change. Together, this will promote ocean regeneration alongside management for sustainable use to prevent further degradation and to allow much‐needed ecological recovery.

show abstract

“…Within this framework, the implementation of active and coordinated efforts for vermetid reef conservation should be an intergovernmental priority. Planning how to face local vermetid decline by successful restoration strategy should also consider biological interactions and the adoption of a multispecies approach (McAfee et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canopy-forming algae improve the colonization success of the vermetid reef-builder Dendropoma cristatum (Biondi 1859) on artificial substrates

La Marca,

Ape,

Rinaldi

et al. 2024

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive interactions among foundation species play a crucial role in achieving and maintaining a good state of the marine environment, enhancing the habitat stability, productivity, and the whole ecosystem functioning. In this regard, macroalgal canopies may affect the biotic and abiotic environmental features, improving the habitat quality for the establishment of other sedentary organisms. In this study, we investigated the effect of intertidal canopy-forming algae on the colonization success of the central-Mediterranean vermetid reef-builder Dendropoma cristatum (Biondi 1859) on artificial substrates produced for reef restoration purposes. An in situ experiment was carried out along the northwestern coast of Sicily during the breeding season of the vermetid snails, by using geopolymer concrete settlement discs with a topographic design to facilitate the vermetid settlement. The discs were placed on the seaward reef rim, underneath the macroalgal canopy, and on adjacent control bare reef areas. The canopy effect on the understory algal colonization and the environmental temperature at the vermetid settlement substrate were also surveyed. After 35 days of field exposure, the vermetid settlement increased by 1.7-fold on the discs underneath the macroalgal canopy compared with that on the bare settlement discs. Moreover, the understory algae showed a higher homogeneity and a lower percent cover on the settlement discs underneath the macroalgal canopy. The peaks of temperature were higher on the bare reef, and the macroalgal canopy also reduced temperature variability under maximum sun irradiance during the diurnal low tides. The vermetid settlement was positively correlated to the canopy cover, which, directly or indirectly, improved the success of colonization of the reef-builder snails on artificial substrates. The deployment of settlement discs where canopy-forming algae are naturally present may facilitate the gardening of vermetid clusters that may be translocated to restock the reef-builder density at degraded areas.

show abstract

Multi-habitat seascape restoration: optimising marine restoration for coastal repair and social benefit

Cited by 11 publications

References 109 publications

Habitat‐setting affects biodiversity while predation determines oyster survival on experimental oyster reefs

Habitat‐setting affects biodiversity while predation determines oyster survival on experimental oyster reefs

Link marine restoration to marine spatial planning through ecosystem‐based management to maximize ocean regeneration

Canopy-forming algae improve the colonization success of the vermetid reef-builder Dendropoma cristatum (Biondi 1859) on artificial substrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About