Transplantation as a method for restoring the seagrass Posidonia australis

Bastyan, Geoffrey; Cambridge, Marion L.

doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.012

Cited by 86 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Transplants were located adjacent to sites of earlier experiments (Bastyan and Cambridge 2008) on a sub-tidal sand area on the south-eastern margin, in , 1.5-m water depth with a mean tidal range of 0.5 m. Natural sediment composition was siliceous sands (medium to very fine grain sizes) with high shell and organic matter (dead Posidonia roots, rhizome, and fiber) to , 20-cm depth (Table 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Transplant units were prepared following Bastyan and Cambridge (2008), and consisted of two shoots and a 100-mm length of the underground stem (horizontal rhizome) for P. australis and 70 mm for P. sinuosa. All roots were removed from rhizomes using a razor blade.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recovery is often very slow and may take decades for large meadowforming genera such as Posidonia (Kendrick et al 2000(Kendrick et al , 2002Cambridge et al 2002). Transplanting plant units from healthy meadows into denuded areas may be the only means of re-establishing seagrasses for habitat restoration (Fonseca et al 1998;Bastyan and Cambridge 2008) but nutrient limitation (Kenworthy and Fonseca 1992) and poor root growth (Lepoint et al 2004) have been reported to contribute to low transplant success rates. Fertilizers have been added to overcome nutrient limitation and enhance transplant success (Sheridan et al 1998;Worm et al 2000;Cambridge and Kendrick 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Direct measurements of root growth and productivity in the seagrasses Posidonia australis and P. sinuosa

Hovey

Cambridge

Kendrick

2011

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of nutrients and planting season on root growth were investigated in transplants of the seagrasses Posidonia australis and P. sinuosa. Difficulties with sampling and estimating root growth of these submerged plants were overcome by growing transplants, with all roots removed initially, in pots containing a standardized sand medium. Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and nitrogen and phosphorus combined (N + P) were added to pots. Root elongation and productivity were measured after harvesting at 1 month, 4 months, and 6 months in consecutive experiments beginning in autumn and spring. Roots formed within a month, growing into extensive root systems. Posidonia australis root growth was three-fold less over winter (10 mm d 21 per plant) than summer (33 mm d 21 per plant), with some plants producing up to 9 m of roots in 6 months. Posidonia sinuosa root-growth rates were significantly lower than those of P. australis and did not vary between winter and summer (6 mm d 21 per plant). Root productivity was lower with N and N + P addition for P. sinuosa and with N addition for P. australis in summer. In contrast, P addition had little effect on root growth, reducing only primary root growth in P. australis. Addition of nutrients did not result in the expected increases in fine roots in the zone around the nutrient source. This technique for measuring root growth demonstrated the potential of these Posidonia transplants to produce extensive root systems within months of planting, in contrast to the much slower growth of roots in mature seagrass meadows.Seagrass meadows are declining globally at a disturbing rate driven by anthropogenic effects along increasingly populated coastlines (Waycott et al. 2009). Recovery is often very slow and may take decades for large meadowforming genera such as Posidonia (Kendrick et al. 2000(Kendrick et al. , 2002Cambridge et al. 2002). Transplanting plant units from healthy meadows into denuded areas may be the only means of re-establishing seagrasses for habitat restoration (Fonseca et al. 1998;Bastyan and Cambridge 2008) but nutrient limitation (Kenworthy and Fonseca 1992) and poor root growth (Lepoint et al. 2004) have been reported to contribute to low transplant success rates. Fertilizers have been added to overcome nutrient limitation and enhance transplant success (Sheridan et al. 1998;Worm et al. 2000; Cambridge and Kendrick 2009). Seagrasses take up nutrients mainly through the roots when concentrations of nutrients in the sediment are much higher than in the water column, and nutrient imbalances or limitation may also link to nutrient availability in the sediments. Rapid development of a strong root system for anchorage and nutrient uptake seems likely to enhance transplant success but little is known about root growth in any seagrasses, particularly their response to nutrient availability (Kiswara et al. 2009). For species with extensive root systems that grow in subtidal environments, accurate sampling presents several difficulties, such as buoyant roots that a...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direct measurements of root growth and productivity in the seagrasses Posidonia australis and P. sinuosa

Hovey

Cambridge

Kendrick

2011

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, environmental changes in the marine biosphere (Halpern et al 2008) also demand restorative action. Many of the ecological concepts we discuss apply to marine areas as well and can inform marine restoration programs into the future and those that are already underway (e.g., Elliott et al 2007, Bastyan and Cambridge 2008, Campbell et al 2014. Restoration traditionally focused either on a functional goal (e.g., reinstating soil processes, productivity) or, in conservation settings, achieving desired (plant) species composition that was assumed to lead to desired (ecosystem) function, with an ecological worldview that tended to think in terms of equilibrium in an unchanging environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Simultaneous environmental changes challenge biodiversity persistence and human wellbeing. The science and practice of restoration ecology, in collaboration with other disciplines, can contribute to overcoming these challenges. This endeavor requires a solid conceptual foundation based in empirical research which confronts, tests and influences theoretical developments. We review conceptual developments in restoration ecology over the last 30 years. We frame our review in the context of changing restoration goals which reflect increased societal awareness of the scale of environmental degradation and the recognition that inter-disciplinary approaches are needed to tackle environmental problems. Restoration ecology now encompasses facilitative interactions and network dynamics, trophic cascades, and above-and belowground linkages. It operates in a non-equilibrium, alternative states framework, at the landscape scale, and in response to changing environmental, economic and social conditions. Progress has been marked by conceptual advances in the fields of trait-environment relationships, community assembly, and understanding the links between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Conceptual and practical advances have been enhanced by applying evolving technologies, including treatments to increase seed germination and overcome recruitment bottlenecks, high throughput DNA sequencing to elucidate soil community structure and function, and advances in satellite technology and GPS tracking to monitor habitat use. The synthesis of these technologies with systematic reviews of context dependencies in restoration success, model based analyses and consideration of complex socioecological systems will allow generalizations to inform evidence based interventions. Ongoing challenges include setting realistic, socially acceptable goals for restoration under changing environmental conditions, and prioritizing actions in an increasingly space-competitive world. Ethical questions also surround the use of genetically modified material, translocations, taxon substitutions, and de-extinction, in restoration ecology. Addressing these issues, as the Ecological Society of America looks to its next century, will require current and future generations of researchers and practitioners, including economists, engineers, philosophers, landscape architects, social scientists and restoration ecologists, to work together with communities and governments to rise to the environmental challenges of the coming decades.

show abstract

“…Although there were some highly successful revegetation projects with long-term persistence, when these techniques were transferred or simultaneously trialled in another location, plant survival was highly variable (Lewis III et al 1994;Bastyan and Cambridge 2008;Uhrin et al 2009). Although we may not have been able to develop specific revegetation guidelines on the basis of these projects, by developing an understanding of the factors limiting successful revegetation (Table 3), we can now suggest that a more thorough investigation be undertaken on their potential impact on revegetation in Shark Bay.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative assessment of approaches and outcomes for seagrass revegetation in Shark Bay and Florida Bay

Statton

Dixon

Hovey

et al. 2012

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Here, we review the literature to evaluate seagrass revegetation projects focussed on Posidonia australis and Amphibolis antarctica, the main affected species in Shark Bay in the World Heritage Area in Western Australia, together with projects from Florida Bay, an analogous system with a long history of seagrass revegetation. We assessed the effectiveness of anchoring planting units, plant-unit density and size on planting-unit survival. We found no positive trends in our assessment, suggesting that there is no discrete technique, approach or technology that could be used with confidence to deliver costeffective, scalable revegetation. Of concern was that revegetation success was evaluated over comparatively short time frames (1-3 years), driven by the strict time frames or deadlines of governing grant funding and commercial activities, leading to concerns that long-term revegetation outcomes may be difficult to assess with confidence. Several factors influenced revegetation outcomes which were grouped into three 'filter' categories; abiotic, biotic and socioeconomic. We recommend that future revegetation programs involving seagrass have greater emphasis on understanding how these filters act independently or collectively to drive successful revegetation as well as developing cost-effective, proven and scalable technology supported by longer-term monitoring to ensure revegetation programs do achieve the desired ecological outcomes.

show abstract

Transplantation as a method for restoring the seagrass Posidonia australis

Cited by 86 publications

References 43 publications

Direct measurements of root growth and productivity in the seagrasses Posidonia australis and P. sinuosa

Direct measurements of root growth and productivity in the seagrasses Posidonia australis and P. sinuosa

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

A comparative assessment of approaches and outcomes for seagrass revegetation in Shark Bay and Florida Bay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About