1
|
Morris RL, Campbell-Hooper E, Waters E, Bishop MJ, Lovelock CE, Lowe RJ, Strain EMA, Boon P, Boxshall A, Browne NK, Carley JT, Fest BJ, Fraser MW, Ghisalberti M, Gillanders BM, Kendrick GA, Konlechner TM, Mayer-Pinto M, Pomeroy AWM, Rogers AA, Simpson V, Van Rooijen AA, Waltham NJ, Swearer SE. Current extent and future opportunities for living shorelines in Australia. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2024; 917:170363. [PMID: 38308900 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/20/2024] [Indexed: 02/05/2024]
Abstract
Living shorelines aim to enhance the resilience of coastlines to hazards while simultaneously delivering co-benefits such as carbon sequestration. Despite the potential ecological and socio-economic benefits of living shorelines over conventional engineered coastal protection structures, application is limited globally. Australia has a long and diverse coastline that provides prime opportunities for living shorelines using beaches and dunes, vegetation, and biogenic reefs, which may be either natural ('soft' approach) or with an engineered structural component ('hybrid' approach). Published scientific studies, however, have indicated limited use of living shorelines for coastal protection in Australia. In response, we combined a national survey and interviews of coastal practitioners and a grey and peer-reviewed literature search to (1) identify barriers to living shoreline implementation; and (2) create a database of living shoreline projects in Australia based on sources other than scientific literature. Projects included were those that had either a primary or secondary goal of protection of coastal assets from erosion and/or flooding. We identified 138 living shoreline projects in Australia through the means sampled starting in 1970; with the number of projects increasing through time particularly since 2000. Over half of the total projects (59 %) were considered to be successful according to their initial stated objective (i.e., reducing hazard risk) and 18 % of projects could not be assessed for their success based on the information available. Seventy percent of projects received formal or informal monitoring. Even in the absence of peer-reviewed support for living shoreline construction in Australia, we discovered local and regional increases in their use. This suggests that coastal practitioners are learning on-the-ground, however more generally it was stated that few examples of living shorelines are being made available, suggesting a barrier in information sharing among agencies at a broader scale. A database of living shoreline projects can increase knowledge among practitioners globally to develop best practice that informs technical guidelines for different approaches and helps focus attention on areas for further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morris
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
| | - Erin Campbell-Hooper
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Elissa Waters
- School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
| | - Melanie J Bishop
- School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
| | - Catherine E Lovelock
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Ryan J Lowe
- Oceans Graduate School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Elisabeth M A Strain
- Institute for Marine and Antarctic Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia; Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7053, Australia
| | - Paul Boon
- School of Geography, Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Anthony Boxshall
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Nicola K Browne
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - James T Carley
- Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Manly Vale, NSW 2093, Australia
| | - Benedikt J Fest
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation, Federation University, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia
| | - Matthew W Fraser
- School of Biological Sciences and UWA Oceans Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia; Centre for Oceanomics, The Minderoo Foundation, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Marco Ghisalberti
- Oceans Graduate School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Bronwyn M Gillanders
- School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
| | - Gary A Kendrick
- School of Biological Sciences and UWA Oceans Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Teresa M Konlechner
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; School of Geography | Te Iho Whenua, The University of Otago | Te Whare Wānanga o Otāgo, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
| | - Mariana Mayer-Pinto
- Centre for Marine Science and Innovation and Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
| | - Andrew W M Pomeroy
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Abbie A Rogers
- Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, School of Agriculture and Environment and Oceans Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Viveka Simpson
- School of Geography, Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Arnold A Van Rooijen
- Oceans Graduate School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Nathan J Waltham
- Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, QLD 4810, Australia
| | - Stephen E Swearer
- National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Miller CR, Hyman AC, Shi DH, Lipcius RN. Assessment of treatment-specific tethering survival bias for the juvenile blue crab Callinectes sapidus in a simulated salt marsh. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0289398. [PMID: 37871039 PMCID: PMC10593224 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is ecologically and economically important in Chesapeake Bay. Nursery habitats, such as seagrass beds, disproportionately contribute individuals to the adult segment of populations. Salt marshes dominated by smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora are intertidal nursery habitats which may serve as a refuge from predation for juvenile blue crabs. However, the effects of various characteristics of salt marshes on nursery metrics, such as survival, have not been quantified. Comparisons of juvenile survival between salt marshes and other habitats often employ tethering to assess survival. Although experimental bias when tethering juvenile prey is well recognized, the potential for habitat-specific bias in salt marshes has not been experimentally tested. Using short-term mesocosm predation experiments, we tested if tethering in simulated salt marsh habitats produces a habitat-specific bias. Juvenile crabs were tethered or un-tethered and randomly allocated to mesocosms at varying simulated shoot densities and unstructured sand. Tethering reduced survival, and its effect was not habitat specific, irrespective of shoot density, as evidenced by a non-significant interaction effect between tethering treatment and habitat. Thus, tethering juvenile blue crabs in salt marsh habitat did not produce treatment-specific bias relative to unvegetated habitat across a range of shoot densities; survival of tethered and un-tethered crabs was positively related to shoot density. These findings indicate that tethering is a useful method for assessing survival in salt marshes, as with other nursery habitats including seagrass beds, algae and unstructured sand.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cole R. Miller
- William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, United States of America
- Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, United States of America
| | - A. Challen Hyman
- Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Daniel H. Shi
- William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Romuald N. Lipcius
- Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Levine AJ, Turrietta EM, Bilkovic DM, Chambers RM. Demographic and Trophic Analysis of Adult Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) from Living Shoreline and Natural Tidal Marshes in the Chesapeake Bay. Northeast Nat (Steuben) 2022. [DOI: 10.1656/045.029.0204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Donna M. Bilkovic
- Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA 23062
| | | |
Collapse
|