Mutualistic interactions amplify saltmarsh restoration success

Derksen‐Hooijberg, Marlous; Angelini, Christine; Lamers, Leon P. M.; Borst, Annieke; Smolders, Alfons J. P.; Hoogveld, J.R.H.; Paoli, Hélène de; Koppel, Johan van de; Silliman, Brian R.; Heide, Tjisse van der

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12960

Cited by 75 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent studies have shown that promoting positive interactions between individuals of the same species can increase restoration success (de Paoli et al, 2017; Silliman et al, 2015; van der Heide et al, 2007), highlighting the importance of facilitative interactions in restoring ecosystem‐engineering species (Maxwell et al, 2017). Facilitative interactions between ecosystem engineers may be equally important for promoting resilience and recovery (Angelini et al, 2016; Derksen‐Hoojiberg et al, 2018; Renzi, He, & Silliman, 2019; van de Koppel et al, 2015), but <3% of restoration projects have integrated interspecific interactions (Zhang et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating foundation species: The potential for plant–bivalve interactions to improve habitat restoration success

Gagnon

Rinde

Bengil³

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetated marine and freshwater habitats are being increasingly lost around the world. Habitat restoration is a critical step for conserving these valuable habitats, but new approaches are needed to increase restoration success and ensure their survival. We investigated interactions between plants and bivalves through a review and analysis of 491 studies, determined the effects, mechanisms and key environmental variables involved in and driving positive and negative interactions, and produced guidelines for integrating positive interactions into restoration efforts in different habitats. Fifty per cent of all interactions (both correlative and experimental studies) were positive. These were predominant between epifaunal bivalves and plants in all habitats, and between infaunal bivalves and plants in subtidal habitats. Plants primarily promoted bivalve survival and abundance by providing substrate and shelter, while bivalves promoted plant growth and survival by stabilizing and fertilizing the sediment, and reducing water turbidity. The prevalence of positive interactions increased with water temperature in subtidal habitats, but decreased with water temperature in intertidal habitats. The subset of studies conducted in a restoration context also showed mostly positive interactions. Twenty‐five per cent of all interactions were negative, and these were predominant between plants and infaunal bivalves in intertidal habitats, except sulphide‐metabolizing bivalves, which facilitated plant survival. Interactions involving non‐native species were also mostly negative. Synthesis and applications. Promoting facilitative interactions through plant–bivalve co‐restoration can increase restoration success. The prevalence of positive interactions depends on habitat and environmental conditions such as temperature, and was especially important in subtidal habitats (involving both infaunal and epifaunal bivalves) and in intertidal habitats (involving only epifaunal bivalves). Thus sites and species for co‐restoration must be carefully chosen to maximize the chances of success. If done properly, co‐restoration could increase initial survival, persistence and resilience of foundation species, and promote the recovery of associated biodiversity and ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating foundation species: The potential for plant–bivalve interactions to improve habitat restoration success

Gagnon

Rinde

Bengil³

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite this investment, the majority of restoration projects either fail completely (Cunha et al, 2012;Tanner & Parham, 2010) or result in only partial recovery of the ecosystem (Rey Benayas, Newton, Diaz, & Bullock, 2009;Suding, 2011). This could be due to poor restoration designs and justifies the need to re-consider planting strategies (Derksen-Hooijberg et al, 2017;Silliman et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External conditions drive optimal planting configurations for salt marsh restoration

Duggan-Edwards

Pagès

Jenkins

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal salt marshes are threatened by erosion from storminess and sea level rise, with resulting losses in flood protection, wildlife and recreational space. Although more than $1 billion has been spent to reconcile losses, restoration has had varying success because of poor survival of planted patches in challenging wave and current conditions. Marsh expansion after colonization or replanting is regulated by positive and negative feedbacks between vegetation density and sediment capture. Dense vegetation stimulates sediment capture and vertical patch growth, but negatively constrains patch expansion by concentrating hydrological energy into erosion gullies along patch edges. Conversely, low‐density vegetation may not simulate enough sediment capture, which increases plant dislodgement mortality. The strengths of positive and negative feedbacks will vary with wave exposure, but this has never been tested in natural conditions. We observed density‐dependent sediment feedbacks, survival and lateral expansion by Sporobolus anglicus patches (0.8 × 0.8 m) planted at three levels of vegetation density, at each of three levels of wave forcing (three sites). We found interactive effects of plant density and forcing on the strength of positive and negative feedbacks. Density‐dependent feedbacks only emerged in moderate and exposed conditions: classic marsh tussock patch shapes, which arise due to combined positive (vertical growth) and negative (gullies) feedbacks, were only associated with high density vegetation under exposed conditions. At high exposure, survival was enhanced by dense planting, which diverted energy away from the vegetation. In sheltered conditions, expansion was the greatest at medium density, while dense patches had high mortality and erosion. Synthesis and applications. Success of wetland restoration clearly hinges on considering interactions between environmental stress and planting density. In challenging high‐exposure settings, dense planting in large patches should maximize success, as plant facilitation boosts sediment capture and negative edge effects (gullies) will represent a diminished proportion of larger patches. Yet, benefits of dense planting will switch from positive (facilitation) to negative (competition) with reduced environmental stress, when moderate‐density planting might be optimal. Switches along stress gradients between positive and negative feedbacks are common across ecosystems. We call for wider integration of facilitation and stress–gradient principles into restoration design to safeguard restoration successes.

show abstract

“…, Derksen‐Hooijberg et al. ). Our study underlines these previous findings, but also calls for an extension of this framework: Rather than harnessing positive interactions, efforts to restore target species in ecosystems dominated by unwanted habitat‐modifying species should be aimed at breaking these self‐facilitative feedback mechanisms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraspecific facilitation explains the persistence of Phragmites australis in modified coastal wetlands

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal exploitation and human‐mediated modifications have markedly altered the community composition and functioning of coastal wetlands worldwide. Although recent work has shown that harnessing positive density‐dependent feedbacks can greatly enhance the recovery of habitat‐modifying species in degraded wetlands, the role of these intraspecific feedbacks in explaining the persistence of altered, unfavorable plant communities remains largely unexplored. Here, we experimentally tested whether intraspecific facilitation may explain the persistence of common reed (Phragmites australis) in human‐modified coastal wetlands. We performed a full‐factorial mesocosm experiment crossing low‐density pioneer versus high‐density established development stages with saline (20 psu) versus freshwater conditions. Results showed a clear shift in plant growth response from intraspecific competition under freshwater conditions to self‐facilitation in saline treatments. We identified two positive feedback mechanisms enabling the established treatment to overcome salinity stress: (1) Enhanced root oxygenation of the sediment at higher plant density decreased accumulation and intrusion of phytotoxic sulfide, and (2) density‐dependent rainwater infiltration into the soil lowered salinity in the dense root mat, preventing salt stress. Our study demonstrates that intraspecific facilitation can be an important factor in explaining the persistence of Phragmites australis in coastal wetlands. We emphasize the importance of integrating positive interactions in coastal restoration but argue that they should either be harnessed when restoring vegetation or broken when eradication of nontarget species is the management objective.

show abstract

Mutualistic interactions amplify saltmarsh restoration success

Cited by 75 publications

References 53 publications

Facilitating foundation species: The potential for plant–bivalve interactions to improve habitat restoration success

Facilitating foundation species: The potential for plant–bivalve interactions to improve habitat restoration success

External conditions drive optimal planting configurations for salt marsh restoration

Intraspecific facilitation explains the persistence of Phragmites australis in modified coastal wetlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About