Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis

Protecting coastal communities has become increasingly important as their populations grow, resulting in increased demand for engineered shore protection and hardening of over 50% of many urban shorelines. Shoreline hardening is recognized to reduce ecosystem services that coastal populations rely on, but the amount of hardened coastline continues to grow in many ecologically important coastal regions. Therefore, to inform future management decisions, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing the ecosystem services of biodiversity (richness or diversity) and habitat provisioning (organism abundance) along shorelines with versus without engineered-shore structures. Seawalls supported 23% lower biodiversity and 45% fewer organisms than natural shorelines. In contrast, biodiversity and abundance supported by riprap or breakwater shorelines were not different from natural shorelines; however, effect sizes were highly heterogeneous across organism groups and studies. As coastal development increases, the type and location of shoreline hardening could greatly affect the habitat value and functioning of nearshore ecosystems

Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats

Coastal ecosystems provide numerous services, such as nutrient cycling, climate change amelioration, and habitat provision for commercially valuable organisms. Ecosystem functions and processes are modified by human activities locally and globally, with degradation of coastal ecosystems by development and climate change occurring at unprecedented rates. The demand for coastal defense strategies against storms and sea-level rise has increased with human population growth and development along coastlines world-wide, even while that population growth has reduced natural buffering of shorelines. Shoreline hardening, a common coastal defense strategy that includes the use of seawalls and bulkheads (vertical walls constructed of concrete, wood, vinyl, or steel), is resulting in a "coastal squeeze" on estuarine habitats. In contrast to hardening, living shorelines, which range from vegetation plantings to a combination of hard structures and plantings, can be deployed to restore or enhance multiple ecosystem services normally delivered by naturally vegetated shores. Although hundreds of living shoreline projects have been implemented in the United States alone, few studies have evaluated their effectiveness in sustaining or enhancing ecosystem services relative to naturally vegetated shorelines and hardened shorelines. We quantified the effectiveness of (1) sills with landward marsh (a type of living shoreline that combines marsh plantings with an offshore low-profile breakwater), (2) natural salt marsh shorelines (control marshes), and (3) unvegetated bulkheaded shores in providing habitat for fish and crustaceans (nekton). Sills supported higher abundances and species diversity of fishes than unvegetated habitat adjacent to bulkheads, and even control marshes. Sills also supported higher cover of filter-feeding bivalves (a food resource and refuge habitat for nekton) than bulkheads or control marshes. These ecosystem-service enhancements were detected on shores with sills three or more years after construction, but not before. Sills provide added structure and may provide better refuges from predation and greater opportunity to use available food resources for nekton than unvegetated bulkheaded shores or control marshes. Our study shows that unlike shoreline hardening, living shorelines can enhance some ecosystem services provided by marshes, such as provision of nursery habitat

Bivalve facilitation mediates seagrass recovery from physical disturbance in a temperate estuary

Rapid global degradation of coastal habitats can be attributed to anthropogenic activities associated with coastal development, aquaculture, and recreational surface water use. Restoration of degraded habitats has proven challenging and costly, and there is a clear need to develop novel approaches that promote resilience to human-caused disturbances. Positive interactions between species can mitigate environmental stress and recent work suggests that incorporating positive interactions into restoration efforts may improve restoration outcomes. We hypothesized that the addition of a potential facultative mutualist, the native hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), could enhance seagrass bed recovery from disturbance. We conducted two experiments to examine the independent and interacting effects of hard clam addition and physical disturbance mimicking propeller scarring on mixed community Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii seagrass beds in North Carolina. Adding clams to seagrass beds exposed to experimental disturbance generally enhanced seagrass summer growth rates and autumn shoot densities. In contrast, clam addition to non-disturbed seagrass beds did not result in any increase in seagrass growth rates or shoot densities. Clam enhancement of autumn percent cover relative to areas without clam addition was most prominent after Hurricane Dorian, suggesting that clams may also enhance seagrass resilience to repeated disturbances. By June of the next growing season, disturbed areas with clam additions had greater percent cover of seagrass than disturbed areas without clam additions. Beds that were disturbed in April had higher percent cover than areas disturbed in June of the previous growing season. Our results suggest that the timing and occurrence of physical disturbances may modify the ability of clams to facilitate seagrass resiliency and productivity. Understanding when and how to utilize positive, interspecific interactions in coastal restoration is key for improving restoration success rates.ECU Open Access Publishing Support Fun

Inclusion of Intra- and Interspecific Facilitation Expands the Theoretical Framework for Seagrass Restoration

Restoration is increasingly utilized as a strategy to stymie the loss of coastal habitats. Coastal habitat restoration has predominantly emphasized designs that minimize physical stress and competition. As evidence of the pervasiveness of this approach, we conducted a global survey of seagrass restorationers and found a strong affinity for stress-avoidant designs with adult shoots in dispersed rather than aggregated configurations. To test the alternative hypothesis that including positive interactions can enhance restoration success, we experimentally incorporated: (i) interspecific facilitation (clam additions) into seed sowing, and (ii) both intra- and interspecific facilitation (planting a single-large versus multiple-small patches and adding clams) into shoot planting. Clam additions to seeds significantly enhanced plant biomass and patch size; and nutrient analysis suggested the causative mechanism was clam enhancement of available nitrogen. In contrast, adult outplant growth was enhanced by intra- but not inter-specific facilitation. Dispersed configurations consistently declined, whereas large-intact patches, which had the same initial biomass as dispersed plots, increased in patch area and doubled in shoot density. These results demonstrate that expanding restoration strategies to include positive interactions with respect to seagrass ontogeny has the capability to switch the trajectory of restoration from failure to success

Fish and Invertebrate Use of Restored vs. Natural Oyster Reefs in a Shallow Temperate Latitude Estuary

Coastal marine habitats continue to be degraded, thereby compelling largescale restoration in many parts of the world. Whether restored habitats function similarly to natural habitats and fully recover lost ecosystem services is unclear. In estuaries, oyster reefs have been degraded by multiple anthropogenic activities including destructive fishing practices and reduced water quality, motivating restoration to maintain oyster fisheries and other ecosystem services, often at relatively high cost. We compared fish and invertebrate communities on recently restored (0–1 year post-restoration), older restored (3–4 years post-restoration), and natural oyster reefs to determine if and when restored reefs support functionally similar faunal communities. To test the influence of landscape setting on the faunal communities, the restored and natural reefs, as well as a control without reef present, were distributed among three landscapes (on the edge of salt marsh away from seagrass [salt marsh landscape], on mudflats [mudflat landscape], and near to seagrass and salt marsh [seagrass landscape]). Oyster density and biomass were greatest on restored reef habitat, as were those of non-oyster bivalve species. Total abundance of invertebrates was much greater on oyster reefs than in control plots, regardless of reef or landscape type, yet were frequently highest on older restored reefs. Meanwhile, juvenile fish densities were greatest on natural reefs, at intermediate densities on older restored reefs, and least abundant on controls. When comparing the effects of reef age and landscape setting, juvenile fish densities were greatest on younger reefs within the mudflat landscape. Collectively, these results indicate that oyster reefs harbor higher densities of resident invertebrate prey, which may explain why reef habitat is also important for juvenile fish. Laboratory and field experiments supported the notion that gag grouper (a predatory demersal fish) forage more effectively on oyster reefs than on unstructured mud bottom, whereas our experiments suggest that flounders that utilize oyster reefs likely forage on adjacent mud bottom. Because landscape setting influenced fish and invertebrate communities on restored reefs, the ecological consequences of landscape setting should be incorporated into restoration decision making and site selection to enhance the recovery of ecosystem goods and services

Reversing a Tyranny of Cascading Shoreline-Protection Decisions Driving Coastal Habitat Loss

Abstract Shoreline hardening is a major driver of biodiversity and habitat loss in coastal ecosystems yet remains a common approach to coastal management globally. Using surveys of waterfront residents in North Carolina, USA, we sought to identify factors influencing individual shore‐protection decisions and ultimately impacting coastal ecosystems, particularly coastal wetlands. We found that neighboring shore condition was the best predictor of respondent shore condition. Respondents with hardened shorelines were more likely to have neighbors with hardened shorelines, and to report that neighbors influenced their shore‐protection choices than respondents with natural shorelines. Further, respondents who expressed climate‐change skepticism and preference for shoreline hardening were opposed to shoreline‐hardening restrictions. Despite preferring hardening, respondents ranked wetlands as highly valuable for storm protection and other ecosystem services, suggesting a disconnect between the ecological knowledge of individuals and social norms of shore‐protection decisions. However, our results also suggest that efforts to increase the installation of living shorelines have the potential to conserve and restore important coastal habitats and support biodiversity along shorelines that may otherwise be degraded by hardening. Further, encouraging waterfront‐property owners who have adopted living shorelines to recommend them to neighbors may be an effective strategy to initiate and reinforce pro‐conservation social norms

Social Factors Key to Landscape-Scale Coastal Restoration: Lessons Learned from Three U.S. Case Studies

In the United States, extensive investments have been made to restore the ecological function and services of coastal marine habitats. Despite a growing body of science supporting coastal restoration, few studies have addressed the suite of societally enabling conditions that helped facilitate successful restoration and recovery efforts that occurred at meaningful ecological (i.e., ecosystem) scales, and where restoration efforts were sustained for longer (i.e., several years to decades) periods. Here, we examined three case studies involving large-scale and long-term restoration efforts including the seagrass restoration effort in Tampa Bay, Florida, the oyster restoration effort in the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia, and the tidal marsh restoration effort in San Francisco Bay, California. The ecological systems and the specifics of the ecological restoration were not the focus of our study. Rather, we focused on the underlying social and political contexts of each case study and found common themes of the factors of restoration which appear to be important for maintaining support for large-scale restoration efforts. Four critical elements for sustaining public and/or political support for large-scale restoration include: (1) resources should be invested in building public support prior to significant investments into ecological restoration; (2) building political support provides a level of significance to the recovery planning efforts and creates motivation to set and achieve meaningful recovery goals; (3) recovery plans need to be science-based with clear, measurable goals that resonate with the public; and (4) the accountability of progress toward reaching goals needs to be communicated frequently and in a way that the general public comprehends. These conclusions may help other communities move away from repetitive, single, and seemingly unconnected restoration projects towards more large-scale, bigger impact, and coordinated restoration efforts