A roadmap to integrating resilience into the practice of coral reef restoration

Shaver, Elizabeth C.; McLeod, Elizabeth; Hein, Margaux Y.; Palumbi, Stephen R.; Quigley, Kate M.; Vardi, Tali; Mumby, Peter J.; Smith, David J.; Montoya-Maya, Phanor H.; Muller, Erinn M.; Álvarez‐Filip, Lorenzo; McLeod, Ian; Wachenfeld, David

doi:10.1111/gcb.16212

Cited by 50 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 136 publications

(182 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an outcome is consistent with other coral propagation projects employing intermediate nursery propagation phases, owing to added capital costs for nursery materials and labor requirements for cleaning and maintenance (e.g., Shafir & Rinkevich 2010;Montano et al 2022). However, while nursery propagation and maintenance move focus from coral planting, coral nurseries provide readily available (Bostrom-Einarsson et al 2020;Howlett et al 2022Howlett et al , 2023 and selected-for coral stock (Baums et al 2019;Shaver et al 2022), thereby reducing time required for coral material collection on planting days. Nurseries importantly serve as visually appealing demonstration sites for educating visitors on reef stewardship activity (Howlett et al 2022) and hence are necessary for overall project life-cycle investment for the CNP operational approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of tourism‐led coral planting at scale on the northern Great Barrier Reef

Scott,

Edmondson,

Camp

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder‐led coral reef restoration efforts, aimed at locally retaining or rebuilding coral populations, have rapidly grown over the last two decades. However, the cost‐effectiveness—and in turn viability—of coral restoration projects remains rarely reported. We therefore evaluated coral planting (often termed “outplanting”) cost‐effectiveness across the first 3.5 years of the Coral Nurture Program (CNP), a coral restoration approach integrated within tourism operations on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. CNP operator activity reporting forms (63,632 corals planted, 5 tourism operators, and 23 reef sites) were used to opportunistically calculate coral planting costs (PC; US$ coral−1 trip−1) for “routine” planting versus when additional stewardship activities—that regulate planting effectiveness—were undertaken (e.g., nursery maintenance). Mean PC (±standard error) was US$2.34 ± 0.20 coral−1 trip−1 (ranging US$0.78–6.03, 5th–95th percentile), but increased 2‐ to ‐6‐fold on trips where nursery propagation, site maintenance, or staff training was conducted to support planting efforts. The “realized” cost (PCR) of establishing coral biomass was subsequently determined by evaluating survivorship of planted corals across space (9 sites, single survey timepoint, n = 4,723 corals up to 3 years old) or over time (2 sites, over 9–12 months, n = 600 corals), resulting in costs increasing from PC to PCR by 25–71%. We demonstrate how integration of practices into tourism operations creates potential for cost‐effective coral planting at “high‐value” tourism reef sites, and discuss important steps for improving cost‐accounting in stakeholder‐led restoration programs that may be similarly positioned to routinely determine their cost‐effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of tourism‐led coral planting at scale on the northern Great Barrier Reef

Scott,

Edmondson,

Camp

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Restoration is establishing itself as an additional coral reef conservation tool (Rinkevich 2019), complementing traditional measures and climate action to maintain coral reef ecosystem functions and services under present-day stressors (Anthony et al 2017;Mcleod et al 2019). The appropriate use of coral gardening, a commonly-used restoration technique where corals are first grown in nursery structures before being outplanted on the reef (Rinkevich 1995(Rinkevich , 2005, has been outlined in several science-based guidelines (Edwards et al 2010;Johnson et al 2010;Shaver et al 2020). This two-step coral gardening technique has realized substantial increases in hard coral cover locally (Hein et al 2020) and the adaptability of this low-tech technique allows for easy implementation in emergent regions such as East Africa (Mbije et al 2010(Mbije et al , 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass of key grazing fishes is an important determinant of coral growth and fouling control in coral nurseries

Knoester,

Rizzi,

Murk

et al. 2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration is an emerging tool for coral reef conservation, yet despite small‐scale successes there are concerns about high costs and ecological setbacks. Integration between reef ecology and restoration could help address such concerns. A prime example is the use of grazing by herbivores to reduce coral nursery cleaning costs. However, the relation between herbivore communities and cleaning benefits remains unquantified. This study aimed to measure links between herbivorous fish communities, grazing intensity and coral nursery performance. Six reefs were selected in southern Kenya, equally divided across three levels of fisheries management (fished < reserve < no‐take). Fish surveys determined herbivorous fish biomass and composition, and remote underwater videos recorded grazing intensity on coral nurseries. Accumulated fouling and coral growth were measured at the end of the 4‐month study. Grazing intensity was sixfold lower and fouling density fourfold higher in the fished areas compared to protected zones. Higher fouling strongly correlated with lower coral growth: exponential growth constants in fished areas were respectively twice and three times as low compared to marine reserves and no‐take zones. Across study sites grazing was dominated by bristletooth tangs (Ctenochaetus spp.), except where these were outcompeted by territorial damselfish. Thus, better coral nursery performance in protected areas can be partially linked to higher grazing intensity, which in turn is determined by both fish biomass and local species composition. We recommend protecting herbivorous fish species and placing coral nurseries in areas with high biomass of key grazers to improve coral nursery performance and reduce maintenance costs.

show abstract

“…The resilience of natural systems can be considered as a function of resistance—the capacity of the system to withstand a disturbance, and recovery—the capacity to return to a pre‐disturbance state (Hodgson et al, 2015). The concept of resilience has featured heavily in efforts to understand, manage and predict the future of coral reefs in a rapidly changing climate (Hughes et al, 2010; Mumby & Anthony, 2015; O'Leary et al, 2017; Roff & Mumby, 2012; Shaver et al, 2022). High disturbance frequency means shorter windows for recovery (Hughes et al, 2017, 2021), such that the resistance of coral reefs may contribute more to resilience than recovery processes (Darling & Côté, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coral reef state influences resilience to acute climate‐mediated disturbances

Cresswell,

Renton,

Langlois

et al. 2023

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThe aim of this study was to understand the interplay between resistance and recovery on coral reefs, and to investigate dependence on pre‐ and post‐disturbance states, to inform generalizable reef resilience theory across large spatial and temporal scales.LocationTropical coral reefs globally.Time Period1966–2017.Major Taxa StudiedScleractinian hard corals.MethodsWe conducted a literature search to compile a global data set of total coral cover before and after acute storms, temperature stress and coastal run‐off from flooding events. We used meta‐regression to identify variables that explained significant variation in disturbance impact, including disturbance type, year, depth and pre‐disturbance coral cover. We further investigated the influence of these same variables, as well as post‐disturbance coral cover and disturbance impact, on recovery rate. We examined the shape of recovery, assigning qualitatively distinct, ecologically relevant, population growth trajectories: linear, logistic, logarithmic (decelerating) and a second‐order quadratic (accelerating).ResultsWe analysed 427 disturbance impacts and 117 recovery trajectories. Accelerating and logistic were the most common recovery shapes, underscoring non‐linearities and recovery lags. A complex but meaningful relationship between disturbance impact, the state of a reef pre‐ and post‐disturbance, and recovery rate was identified. Fastest recovery rates were predicted for intermediate to large disturbance impacts, but a decline in this rate was predicted when more than ~75% of pre‐disturbance cover was lost. We identified a shifting baseline, with declines in both pre‐ and post‐disturbance coral cover over the 50‐year study period.Main ConclusionsWe break down the complexities of coral resilience, showing interplay between resistance and recovery, as well as dependence on both pre‐ and post‐disturbance states, alongside documenting a chronic decline in these states. This has implications for predicting coral reef futures and implementing actions to enhance resilience.

show abstract

A roadmap to integrating resilience into the practice of coral reef restoration

Cited by 50 publications

References 136 publications

Cost‐effectiveness of tourism‐led coral planting at scale on the northern Great Barrier Reef

Cost‐effectiveness of tourism‐led coral planting at scale on the northern Great Barrier Reef

Biomass of key grazing fishes is an important determinant of coral growth and fouling control in coral nurseries

Coral reef state influences resilience to acute climate‐mediated disturbances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About