We review the status of marine shellfish ecosystems formed primarily by bivalves in Australia, including: identifying ecosystem-forming species, assessing their historical and current extent, causes for decline and past and present management. Fourteen species of bivalves were identified as developing complex, three-dimensional reef or bed ecosystems in intertidal and subtidal areas across tropical, subtropical and temperate Australia. A dramatic decline in the extent and condition of Australia’s two most common shellfish ecosystems, developed by Saccostrea glomerata and Ostrea angasi oysters, occurred during the mid-1800s to early 1900s in concurrence with extensive harvesting for food and lime production, ecosystem modification, disease outbreaks and a decline in water quality. Out of 118 historical locations containing O. angasi-developed ecosystems, only one location still contains the ecosystem whilst only six locations are known to still contain S. glomerata-developed ecosystems out of 60 historical locations. Ecosystems developed by the introduced oyster Crasostrea gigas are likely to be increasing in extent, whilst data on the remaining 11 ecosystem-forming species are limited, preventing a detailed assessment of their current ecosystem-forming status. Our analysis identifies that current knowledge on extent, physical characteristics, biodiversity and ecosystem services of Australian shellfish ecosystems is extremely limited. Despite the limited information on shellfish ecosystems, a number of restoration projects have recently been initiated across Australia and we propose a number of existing government policies and conservation mechanisms, if enacted, would readily serve to support the future conservation and recovery of Australia’s shellfish ecosystems.
Achieving a sustainable socioecological future now requires large‐scale environmental repair across legislative borders. Yet, enabling large‐scale conservation is complicated by policy‐making processes that are disconnected from socioeconomic interests, multiple sources of knowledge, and differing applications of policy. We considered how a multidisciplinary approach to marine habitat restoration generated the scientific evidence base, community support, and funding needed to begin the restoration of a forgotten, functionally extinct shellfish reef ecosystem. The key actors came together as a multidisciplinary community of researchers, conservation practitioners, recreational fisher communities, and government bodies that collaborated across sectors to rediscover Australia's lost shellfish reefs and communicate the value of its restoration. Actions undertaken to build a case for large‐scale marine restoration included synthesizing current knowledge on Australian shellfish reefs and their historical decline, using this history to tell a compelling story to spark public and political interest, integrating restoration into government policy, and rallying local support through community engagement. Clearly articulating the social, economic, and environmental business case for restoration led to state and national funding for reef restoration to meet diverse sustainability goals (e.g., enhanced biodiversity and fisheries productivity) and socioeconomic goals (e.g., job creation and recreational opportunities). A key lesson learned was the importance of aligning project goals with public and industry interests so that projects could address multiple political obligations. This process culminated in Australia's largest marine restoration initiative and shows that solutions for large‐scale ecosystem repair can rapidly occur when socially valued science acts on political opportunities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.