Biodiversity in intertidal rock pools: Informing engineering criteria for artificial habitat enhancement in the built environment

Firth, Louise B.; Schofield, Meredith; White, Freya J.; Skov, Martin W.; Hawkins, Stephen J.

doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.03.016

Cited by 101 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the growing concern regarding rising sea levels and stormier seas, there is now more research focused on how coastal defences can be designed in a more ecologically sensitive manner (Chapman and Underwood, 2011;Firth et al, 2013). These studies indicate that increasing the 'informational complexity' (for example, density of componentsusually the addition of artificial pits and intertidal pools) of these man-made structures can significantly enhance the number of species living on them (Browne and Chapman, 2011;Firth et al, 2014b). As this is a nascent field of study, however, there is little published work that includes, across a range of scales, one or more of the other four variables we describe.…”

Section: Manipulating Structural Complexity For Enhancing Biodiversitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Loke

Ladle

Bouma

et al. 2015

Ecological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Manipulating Structural Complexity For Enhancing Biodiversitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Loke

Ladle

Bouma

et al. 2015

Ecological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dafforn, Glasby, & Johnston, ; Ferse, Nugues, Romatzki, & Kunzmann, ; Perkol‐Finkel, Ferrario, Nicotera, & Airoldi, ; Wilkie, Bishop, & O'Connor, ). In the marine environment, the majority of eco‐engineering to date has been small‐scale experimental additions of habitat features to existing urban infrastructures (Chapman & Underwood, ), with relatively few attempts to incorporate features into new urban infrastructures (but see Chapman & Blockley, ; Firth, Thompson, et al, for some exceptions). These interventions have had varying degrees of success in enhancing native biodiversity, and in some instances may serve as ecological traps if they lead to organisms utilising habitats that reduce their fitness (Hale, Morrongiello, & Swearer, ; Hale, Treml, & Swearer, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eco‐engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit?

Strain

Olabarria

Mayer‐Pinto

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

207

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. Along urbanised coastlines, urban infrastructure is increasingly becoming the dominant habitat. These structures are often poor surrogates for natural habitats, and a diversity of eco-engineering approaches have been trialled to enhance their biodiversity, with varying success.2. We undertook a quantitative meta-analysis and qualitative review of 109 studies to compare the efficacy of common eco-engineering approaches (e.g. increasing texture, crevices, pits, holes, elevations and habitat-forming taxa) in enhancing the biodiversity of key functional groups of organisms, across a variety of habitat settings and spatial scales.3. All interventions, with one exception, increased the abundance or number of species of one or more of the functional groups considered. Nevertheless, the magnitude of effect varied markedly among groups and habitat settings. In the intertidal, interventions that provided moisture and shade had the greatest effect on the richness of sessile and mobile organisms, while water-retaining features had the greatest effect on the richness of fish. In contrast, in the subtidal, small-scale depressions which provide refuge to new recruits from predators and other environmental stressors such as waves, had higher abundances of sessile organisms while elevated structures had higher numbers and abundances of fish. The taxa that responded most positively to eco-engineering in the intertidal were those whose body size most closely matched the dimensions of the resulting intervention. Synthesis and applications. The efficacy of eco-engineering interventions variesamong habitat settings and functional groups. This indicates the importance of developing site-specific approaches that match the target taxa and dominant stressors. Furthermore, because different types of intervention are effective at enhancing different groups of organisms, ideally a range of approaches should be applied simultaneously to maximise niche diversity. K E Y W O R D Sartificial structure, crevice, depression, eco-engineering interventions, habitat-forming species, microhabitat, protrusion, rockpool, seeding, urban infrastructure

show abstract

“…5.2.1 Key design parameters Previous research indicates that ecological enhancements can be designed to support the assemblages of marine invertebrates on which waterbirds might feed (Coombes et al, 2015;Evans et al, 2016;Firth et al, 2014Firth et al, , 2015. These can be quite simple and inexpensive 'passive' techniques (e.g.…”

Section: Ecological Enhancement Design Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rock armour for birds and their prey: ecological enhancement of coastal engineering

Naylor

MacArthur

Hampshire

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Maritime En

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors present key design, construction and ecological enhancement criteria for sustainable coastal defence structures at Hartlepool, UK, a high-energy wave climate. Such 'ecologically favourable' coastal defences fulfil the habitats directive and key engineering and cost criteria. Bird, rocky intertidal ecological and biogeomorphological data underpin recommendations for 'passive' enhancement mitigation to maximise ecological potential involving rock armour material choice (partially enhanced) and its smart positioning (enhanced). Within 12-18 months of installation, key intertidal species (e.g. limpets, barnacles, fucoid seaweeds) had successfully colonised the rock revetment, matching the initial baseline biotope. However, species abundance and overall mobile and sessile species were not significantly different between the two enhanced treatments after 12-18 months. Importantly, key prey species (the limpet, Patella vulgata) on enhanced rock armour showed statistically significant abundances similar to the baseline shore platform and significantly higher than partially enhanced rock armour. These preliminary data show that well-chosen rock armour material and boulder enhancement using positioning can match baseline biotope conditions in 12-18 months and that for some key prey species, positioning-enhanced rock armour rapidly matches baseline conditions. This facilitates rapid rock revetment colonisation, enabling good recruitment of food species and favourable conditions for internationally designated waterbird species.

show abstract

Biodiversity in intertidal rock pools: Informing engineering criteria for artificial habitat enhancement in the built environment

Cited by 101 publications

References 101 publications

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Eco‐engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit?

Rock armour for birds and their prey: ecological enhancement of coastal engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About