The Habitat-Creation Potential of Offshore Wind Farms

Wilson, Jennifer C.; Elliott, Michael

doi:10.4324/9781315793245-131

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was suggested that decommissioning was simply the reverse of construction and that subsequently the impacts would be same. However, it was never considered that over the 20-25 year lifetime of the windfarm that ecology, habitats, or ecosystems may have been generated on the various structures, despite a wealth of evidence suggesting the fact (Causon & Gill, 2018;Langhamer, 2012;Smyth, et al, 2015;Wilson & Elliott, 2009).…”

Section: : a Major Positive Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, as well as generating habitats and organism on the structure, artificial reefs can also enhance the abundance and diversity in the surrounding area, therefore the removal of structures may have indirect impacts to these wider interactions at various trophic levels (Gill, 2005). Methods of enhancing biodiversity have been suggested through scour protection (Wilson & Elliott, 2009), which may be left in-situ (Topham & McMillan, 2017) if abiding by OSPAR regulations (OSPAR, 2013). Therefore, understanding the implication of different end of life scenarios is vital to prevent loss of this recently generated biodiversity (Smyth, et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental impacts of decommissioning: Onshore versus offshore wind farms

Hall

João

Knapp

2020

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: : a Major Positive Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impacts of decommissioning: Onshore versus offshore wind farms

Hall

João

Knapp

2020

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…;Thierry, 1988;Bohnsack et al, 1991;Jensen et al, 2000) and ii) those deployed for another primary purpose, such as oil rigs, breakwaters, or Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) facilities (e.g. windfarms, tidal turbines and wave energy converters ; Wilson and Elliott, 2009;Langhamer, 2012;Lima et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Succession in epibenthic communities on artificial reefs associated with marine renewable energy facilities within a tide-swept environment

Taormina

Percheron

Marzloff

et al. 2020

ICES Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although colonization of artificial structures by epibenthic communities is well-documented overall, our understanding of colonization processes is largely limited to low-energy environments. In this study, we monitored epibenthic colonization of different structures associated with a tidal energy test site located in a high-energy hydrodynamic environment. Using four years of image-based underwater surveys, we characterized changes through space and time in the taxonomic composition of epibenthic assemblages colonizing two kinds of artificial structures, as well as the surrounding natural habitat. Our results highlight that ecological successions followed similar trends across the two artificial habitats, but that different habitat-specific communities emerged at the end of our survey. Deployment of these artificial structures resulted in the addition of elevated and stable substrata in an environment where natural hard substrates are unstable and strongly exposed to sediment abrasion. Although epibenthic communities colonizing artificial habitats are unlikely to have reached a mature stage at the end of our survey, these supported structurally complex taxa facilitating an overall increase in local diversity. We were able to quantify how epibenthic communities can significantly vary over time in high-energy coastal environment, and our final survey suggests that the ecological succession was still in progress five years after the deployment of artificial reefs. Thus, maintaining long-term continuous survey of coastal artificial reef habitats will be key to better discriminate between long-term ecological successions and shorter-term variability.

show abstract

“…Pollachius spp. such as saithe (Pollachius virens) have been monitored in high abundance close to sea cages harbouring rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Carss, 1990;Bjordal & Skar, 1992;Dempster et al, 2002), ship wrecks and offshore wind farms (Wilson & Elliott, 2009). The high abundance of Pollachius spp.…”

Section: Aquarium Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Saithe also forage on sea lice associated with fish bred in the aquaculture sector (Carss, 1990). In the captive environment of the tank, European pollock may have changed its vertical distribution in the tank to mimic another species such as horse mackerel and gilthead sea bream or to use the AFI for refuge like observations in the field around anthropogenic structures (Wilson & Elliott, 2009). European plaice and turbot are both demersal, marine juvenile migrants that feed predominantly on bivalves, polychaetes and crustaceans, referred to as zoobenthivores (Miller & Loates, 1997;Elliott & Hemingway, 2002;Elliott et al, 2007b).…”

Section: Aquarium Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Assessment of Artificial Floating Islands as a Method of Habitat Creation in Marine Environments

Jessica¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most megacities are located adjacent to the coast due to the continuous seaward migration of human populations; a process referred to as marine urban sprawl. The subsequent hardening of the natural coastline has caused the loss and degradation of coastal habitats. In order to halt, mitigate and compensate for further losses of biodiversity, it is important that habitat restoration techniques with involve ecological engineering are considered. Artificial floating islands (AFIs) are a habitat creation method used to improve water quality and support biodiversity in aquatic environments. This study aimed to assess the installation of AFIs as a restoration tool in heavily modified coastal water bodies. That included investigating: the suitability of halophytes for transplantation into the AFI matrix; the biofouling communities that establish on the AFIs; the abundance, species richness and behaviour of fish in association with AFIs; the density and behaviour of birds in association with the AFIs; and the public perception of current environmental concerns and therefore, opinion on AFIs as an ecological engineering method. Based on the results of this study sea purslane (Halimione portulacoides) would be recommended for transplantation on AFIs installed in saline environments. The invertebrate community assemblages were notably controlled by the primary settlement of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and Australian tubeworm (Ficopomatus enigmaticus). Juvenile phase European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and gull (Laridae) spp. foraged on the benthic invertebrates that fouled the AFIs underside and European eel (Anguilla Anguilla) rested in the matrix. The public supported the use of AFIs in coastal environments but concerns regarding maintenance and degradation were raised. In conclusion, this study highlighted the importance of AFI size, structure, location and vegetation cover as these factors influence the species composition, degree of isolation and environmental exposure, contributing to the overall success of AFI deployments in heavily modified coastal water bodies.

show abstract

The Habitat-Creation Potential of Offshore Wind Farms

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Environmental impacts of decommissioning: Onshore versus offshore wind farms

Environmental impacts of decommissioning: Onshore versus offshore wind farms

Succession in epibenthic communities on artificial reefs associated with marine renewable energy facilities within a tide-swept environment

An Assessment of Artificial Floating Islands as a Method of Habitat Creation in Marine Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About