Artificial Reefs: A Review

Lokesha,; Sundar, V.; Sannasiraj, S. A.

doi:10.1260/1759-3131.4.2.117

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All the studies reviewed consisted of interventions made to existing structures or incorporated within structures during their construction. We do not describe nearshore or offshore artificial reefs as habitat for fisheries, as well as eco-engineering of the upper reaches of rivers because comprehensive reviews on these subjects exist (e.g.,Nakamura 1985;Baine 2001;Palmer et al 2005;Radspinner et al 2010;Lokesha et al 2013;Lima et al 2019) and these habitats fall outside the remit of this paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Design catalogue for eco-engineering of coastal artificial structures: a multifunctional approach for stakeholders and end-users

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal urbanisation, energy extraction, food production, shipping and transportation have led to the global proliferation of artificial structures within the coastal and marine environments (sensu "ocean sprawl"), with subsequent loss of natural habitats and biodiversity. To mitigate and compensate impacts of ocean sprawl, the practice of ecoengineering of artificial structures has been developed over the past decade. Eco-engineering aims to create sustainable ecosystems that integrate human society with the natural environment for the benefit of both. The science of eco-engineering has grown markedly, yet synthesis of research into a user-friendly and practitioner-focused format is lacking. Feedback from stakeholders has repeatedly stated that a "photo user guide" or "manual" covering the range of eco-engineering options available for artificial structures would be beneficial. However, a detailed and structured "user guide" for eco-engineering in coastal and marine environments is not yet possible; therefore we present an accessible review and catalogue of trialled eco-engineering options and a summary of guidance for a range of different structures tailored for stakeholders and end-users as the first step towards a structured manual. This work can thus serve as a potential template for future eco-engineering guides. Here we provide suggestions for potential eco-engineering designs to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and services of coastal artificial structures with the following structures covered: (1) rock revetment, breakwaters and groynes composed of armour stones or concrete units; (2) vertical and sloping seawalls; (3) over-water structures (i.e., piers) and associated support structures; and (4) tidal river walls.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Design catalogue for eco-engineering of coastal artificial structures: a multifunctional approach for stakeholders and end-users

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Airoldi et al 2005). Nevertheless, artificial surfing reefs are increasingly being adopted for coastal protection (Lokesha et al 2013) and there is an expanding body of evidence to support the potential for ecologically-beneficial designs to be incorporated into coastal defence structures (Moschella et al 2005, Chapman and Blockley 2009, Firth et al 2013a, 2014, Perkol-Finkel and Sella 2014, 2016, Browne and Chapman 2014, Sella and Perkol-Finkel 2015.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder priorities for multi-functional coastal defence developments and steps to effective implementation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To fulfil international conservation commitments, governments have begun to recognise the need for more proactive marine planning policies, advocating sensitive engineering design that can deliver secondary benefits above and beyond the primary purpose of developments. In response, there is growing scientific interest in novel multi-functional coastal defence structures with built-in secondary ecological and/or socio-economic benefits. To ensure research efforts are invested effectively, it is first necessary to determine what secondary benefits can potentially be built-in to engineered coastal defence structures, and further, which of these benefits would be most desirable. It is unlikely that secondary benefits are perceived in the same way across different stakeholder groups. Further, their order of priority when evaluating different options is unlikely to be consistent, since each option will present a suite of compromises and trade-offs. The aim of this study was to investigate stakeholder attitudes towards multi-functional coastal defence developments across different sector groups. A preliminary questionnaire indicated unanimous support for implementing multi-functional structures in place of traditional single-purpose ones. This preliminary survey informed the design of a Delphi-like study, which revealed a more nuanced and caveated level of support from a panel of experts and practitioners. The study also elicited a degree of consensus that the most desirable secondary benefits that could be built-in to developments would be ecological ones – prioritised over social, economic and technical benefits. This paper synthesises these findings, discusses the perceived barriers that remain, and proposes a stepwise approach to effective implementation of multi-functional coastal defence developments

show abstract

“…Indeed, reefs designed against trawling were also expected to include elements (e.g. physical habitat) which would increase the biomass of the biota in the deployment area, either by enhancing production or attracting fauna [14,24]. Another factor deeply connected with AR purpose and success is the deployment depth.…”

Section: Depth and Deployment Purposesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include socioeconomic perspectives, the extent of reliable monitoring, an assessment of the relationship between climate change and biological communities of ARs and overall interdisciplinary studies [22,23]. Information regarding physical details of ARs, such as design, construction materials, and characterization of the deployment site and environmental conditions is also scarce [3,14,24]. Artificial Reef science is a growing area of multidisciplinary research and may contribute to other complementary fields [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Reefs in the North-East Atlantic Area: Present Situation, Knowledge Gaps and Future Perspectives

Reis¹,

Linden²,

Sousa-Pinto³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial reefs have been deployed in multiple regions of the world for different purposes including habitat restoration and protection, biodiversity and fish stock enhancement, fisheries management and recreation. Artificial reefs can be a valuable tool for ecosystem protection and rehabilitation, helping mitigate the effects of anthropogenic impacts that we face today. However, knowledge on artificial reefs is unevenly distributed worldwide, with some regions having much more quality information available and published (e.g. European Mediterranean Sea area), while others, for instance the North-East Atlantic area, do not. Here, we provide a characterization of purposely built artificial reefs in North-East Atlantic area based on all available literature (i.e. research papers and reports), highlighting the needs and gaps that are vital for establishing future perspectives for artificial reef deployment and research. In the North-East Atlantic area, sixty-one purposely built artificial reefs have been deployed since 1970, mostly between the years 1990-2009, with Spain being the country with the highest number of artificial reefs. The most reported purpose for their deployment is fisheries productivity and habitat/species protection, although, most artificial reefs are multipurpose in order to maximise the benefits of a given financial investment. The majority of artificial reefs were submerged at < 50 m, mainly between 10-20 m of depth. The most used designs were cubic blocks and complex designs made by an array of combined shapes, which mostly consist of concrete (79%). From all the analysed data on artificial reefs, 67% of the cases reported surveys to assess biodiversity after the deployment. However, in 26% of those cases, data was not available. When data was available, only 31% of cases reported long-term biomonitoring surveys (3 years or more). Based upon these findings, we noticed a general lack of scientifically robust data, including records of species and abundance of both fish and invertebrates, as well as macroalgae. Preventing an adequate determination of the best balance between shape, construction material and bio-colonization. Critiques and suggestions are discussed in the light of current available data in order to perform more efficient research, evaluation and functioning of future artificial reefs.

show abstract

Artificial Reefs: A Review

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Design catalogue for eco-engineering of coastal artificial structures: a multifunctional approach for stakeholders and end-users

Design catalogue for eco-engineering of coastal artificial structures: a multifunctional approach for stakeholders and end-users

Stakeholder priorities for multi-functional coastal defence developments and steps to effective implementation

Artificial Reefs in the North-East Atlantic Area: Present Situation, Knowledge Gaps and Future Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About