Shellfish reefs increase water storage capacity on intertidal flats over extensive spatial scales

Ecosystem engineering species can affect their environment at multiple spatial scales, from the local scale up to a significant distance, by indirectly affecting the surrounding habitats. Structural changes in the landscape can have important consequences for ecosystem functioning, for example, by increasing retention of limiting resources in the system. Yet, it remains poorly understood how extensive the footprint of ecosystem engineers on the landscape is. Using remote sensing techniques, we reveal that depression storage capacity on intertidal flats is greatly enhanced by engineering by shellfish resulting in intertidal pools. Many organisms use such pools to bridge low water events. This storage capacity was significantly higher both locally within the shellfish reef, but also at extensive spatial scales up to 115 m beyond the physical reef borders. Therefore, the footprint of these ecosystem engineers on the landscape was more than 5 times larger than their actual coverage; the shellfish cover approximately 2% of the total intertidal zone, whereas they influence up to approximately 11% of the area by enhancing water storage capacity. We postulate that increased residence time of water due to higher water storage capacity within engineered landscapes is an important determinant of ecosystem functioning that may extend well beyond the case of shellfish reefs provided here

Remote Sensing of Epibenthic Shellfish Using Synthetic Aperture Radar Satellite Imagery

On intertidal mudflats, reef-building shellfish, like the Pacific oyster and the blue mussel, provide a myriad of ecosystem services. Monitoring intertidal shellfish with high spatiotemporal resolution is important for fisheries, coastal management and ecosystem studies. Here, we explore the potential of X- (TerraSAR-X) and C-band (Radarsat-2) dual-polarized SAR data to map shellfish densities, species and coverage. We investigated two backscatter models (the integral equation model (IEM) and Oh’s model) for inversion possibilities. Surface roughness (vertical roughness RMSz and correlation length L) was measured of bare sediments and shellfish beds, which was then linked to shellfish density, presence and species. Oysters, mussels and bare sediments differed in RMSz, but because the backscatter saturates at relatively low RMSz values, it was not possible to retrieve shellfish density or species composition from X- and C-band SAR. Using a classification based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression of the field and SAR image data, we constructed maps of shellfish presence (Kappa statistics for calibration 0.56–0.74 for dual-polarized SAR), which were compared with independent field surveys of the contours of the beds (Kappa statistics of agreement 0.29–0.53 when using dual-polarized SAR). We conclude that spaceborne SAR allows one to monitor the contours of shellfish-beds (thus, distinguishing shellfish substrates from bare sediment and dispersed single shellfish), but not densities and species. Although spaceborne SAR cannot replace ground surveys entirely, it could very well offer a significant improvement in efficiency

Data with "Shellfish reefs increase water storage capacity on intertidal flats over extensive spatial scales"

Dataset in support of the publication "Shellfish reefs increase water storage capacity on intertidal flats over extensive spatial scales" published in Ecosystems, bij Nieuwhof, Van Belzen, Oteman, van de Koppel, Herman and van der Wal. It includes the data and scripts (R and matlab) for the analyses and figures in this publication. This includes aerial images and elevation maps of the 3 shellfish reefs studied and calculated water storage capacity of the reefs. It also includes a map of water storage capacity of the Dutch Wadden Sea south of the island of Schiermonnikoog based on a bathymetry map

Habitat Modification and Coastal Protection by Ecosystem-Engineering Reef-Building Bivalves

Reef-building bivalves like oysters and mussels are conspicuous ecosystemengineers in intertidal and subtidal coastal environments. By forming complex,three-dimensional structures on top of the sediment surface, epibenthic bivalvereefs exert strong bio-physical interactions, thereby influencing local hydro- and morphodynamics as well as surrounding habitats and associated species. The spatial impact of the ecosystem engineering effects of reef-building bivalves is much larger than the size of the reef. By influencing hydrodynamics oysters and mussels modify the sedimentary environment far beyond the boundaries of the reef, affecting morphological and ecological processes up to several hundreds of meters. Being key-stone species in many coastal environments, reef-building bivalves are increasingly recognized for their role in delivering important ecosystem services that serve human wellbeing. Here we focus on two services, namely the regulating service coastal protection (coastal erosion prevention, shoreline stabilization) and the supporting habitat for species service (enhancement of biodiversity and diversification of the landscape). Due to their wave dampening effects, reef-building bivalve reefs are increasingly used for shoreline protection and erosion control along eroding coastlines, as an alternative to artificial shoreline hardening. Thefacilitative interactions at long-distances of bivalve reefs provide biodiversity benefits and more specifically facilitate or protect other valuable habitats such as intertidal flats, sea grasses, saltmarshes and mangroves. Two case studies are used to demonstrate how bivalve reefs can be restored or constructed for shoreline protection and erosion control, thereby focusing on oyster reefs: (1) Oyster reefs for shoreline protection in coastal Alabama, USA, and (2) Oyster reefs as protection against tidal flat erosion, Oosterschelde, The Netherlands. It is argued that bivalve reefs should be promoted as nature-based solutions that provide biodiversity benefits and coastal protection and help in climate change mitigation and adaptation. In order to successfully restore these habitats practitioners should consider a general framework in which habitat requirements, environmental setting and long-distance interdependence between habitats are mutually considered