Ecological equivalency of living shorelines and natural marshes for fish and crustacean communities

Guthrie, Amanda G.; Bilkovic, Donna Marie; Mitchell, Molly; Chambers, Randolph M.; Thompson, Jessica S.; Isdell, Robert E.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106511

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More property owners are installing riprap than other modifications resulting in an inherent trade-off between private and public goods. Shoreline armoring, such as riprap, provides benefits to the property owner (private benefit) by reducing erosion but shoreline armoring also eliminates or reduces natural tidal habitat (e.g., salt marshes; Balouskus and Targett, 2016) which provides benefits (public goods) to a larger area, such as nursery habitat and nutrient removal (Isdell et al, 2021;Guthrie et al, 2022) and may have the capacity to be adaptive to sea level rise in the right setting (Mitchell and Bilkovic, 2019). Furthermore, shoreline armoring often increases erosion and scour nearby areas (Hardaway and Anderson, 1980).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property owner shoreline modification decisions vary based on their perceptions of shoreline change and interests in ecological benefits

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even under current sea level conditions, many communities are working to protect their coastlines against flooding and shoreline erosion. Coastal communities often protect their shorelines against excessive erosion by using armoring techniques (e.g., bulkheads, riprap). Yet hardened structures reduce many of the natural adaptive mechanisms present in coastal ecosystems and reduce the sustainability of the coastal system. In contrast, natural and nature-based features (e.g., living shorelines) can better protect coastal properties from storm damage and reduce erosion while also having the potential to adapt to new conditions. Since property owners are installing armoring structures more often than living shorelines, we sought to understand the factors motivating their shoreline modification decision. We surveyed property owners in Virginia, U.S. that applied for a shoreline modification permit. Most property owners, regardless of modification sought, perceive riprap revetment to be effective, able to withstand storm damage, and able to adapt to sea level rise. Interestingly, property owners that sought out living shorelines were not highly confident in living shorelines’ protection benefits. While most property owners perceived the ecological benefits of living shorelines, these benefits did not substantially impact the decision over what type of shoreline modification to implement. Our work highlights pathways that can improve coastal resilience given the important role that shoreline property owner decisions contribute to coastal community resiliency. Our results indicate there is a need to better engage property owners about the protection and adaptation benefits of living shorelines as their perceptions were not aligned with scientific assessments of living shorelines. Concurrently, coastal policies could be strengthened to support more natural approaches to shoreline management, as the more common armoring techniques are not resilient to sea level rise or storm damage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property owner shoreline modification decisions vary based on their perceptions of shoreline change and interests in ecological benefits

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, restored and eroding control sites may still provide equivalent ecological values for nekton. Several recent studies that examined restoration responses of marsh edge nekton communities showed no difference in community metrics between restored and adjacent control shorelines, concluding that the restored sites were ecologically equivalent nekton habitats to the control marshes (Isdell et al 2021; Guthrie et al 2022; Troast et al 2022). If the objectives of the restoration projects were to restore degraded shorelines to have similar ecological values as nearby, healthy marsh‐lined shores, then such findings could reasonably be interpreted as success.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most assessments of nekton habitat enhancement in response to restoration use community‐based metrics such as multivariate community composition, species richness, abundance, and diversity (e.g. Gittman et al 2016 a ; Guthrie et al 2022). These approaches are logical since we expect shoreline habitat enhancement to benefit multiple species, that abundance tends to be a reliable indicator of habitat quality (Lefcheck et al 2019), and that diversity frequently reflects ecosystem functioning and resilience (Tilman et al 2014; Troast et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These approaches are logical since we expect shoreline habitat enhancement to benefit multiple species, that abundance tends to be a reliable indicator of habitat quality (Lefcheck et al 2019), and that diversity frequently reflects ecosystem functioning and resilience (Tilman et al 2014; Troast et al 2022). Some studies have reported higher abundances of nekton from restored sites than nearby controls (Scyphers et al 2011; Gittman et al 2016 a ), while others find no differences in community composition, diversity, or abundance between LS and control sites (Guthrie et al 2022). The nature of the control sites in each study needs to be considered to interpret these findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of coastal seascapes for supporting many species, and the ongoing threats confronting these systems, warrant further investigations into the responses of nekton communities to restoration (Guthrie et al 2022). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the response of nekton communities to shoreline restoration at eight LS projects in coastal Alabama.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing habitat enhancement by living shoreline restoration: exploring potential caveats of nekton community metrics

Barros

Rodriguez

Bland

et al. 2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living shorelines (LS) are a nature‐based restoration technique that aims to stabilize shorelines while enhancing multiple ecosystem services. In particular, LS are frequently promoted as beneficial for enhancing essential coastal habitats for fish and mobile crustaceans (nekton). In this study, we aimed to assess the effects of LS on nekton habitat across eight LS restoration sites in coastal Alabama, U.S.A., by applying widely‐used community metrics. Nekton abundance, species richness, evenness, and diversity tended to be higher in LS and adjacent unrestored control sites than along nearby hardened shorelines. Community metrics showed no clear effect of LS compared to their adjacent controls, with substantial among‐site variation masking any restoration effect. While this may suggest an ecological equivalence between restored and control sites, there are other possible interpretations; that a lack of difference reflects sampling the same populations at nearby control and restored sites, that differences do exist but sampling effort was insufficient to detect them, or that community metrics may be too insensitive for comparing the effects of various restoration approaches on nekton habitat quality. Further exploration of individual‐based metrics such as growth and condition of key species is warranted, as these may be more sensitive for assessing restoration outcomes and guiding future project designs.

show abstract

Intertidal Soundscapes of Hardened and Living Shorelines: A Case Study of Habitat Enhancement

Looby,

Reynolds,

McDonald

et al. 2024

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisms, such as fishes and invertebrates and including their larval stages, listen to underwater soundscapes to detect information about nearby habitats. Such soundscapes may be influenced by habitat degradation or enhancement, which can lead to acoustically mediated feedback loops affecting the overall ecosystem. Despite the importance of underwater sounds on ecological functioning, there have been limited studies documenting soundscapes of intertidal ecosystems and few, if any, of living shoreline soundscapes. Living shorelines would especially benefit from acoustically mediated effects for objectives like encouraging fish and invertebrate settlement. This case study used a Before‐After‐Control‐Impact design to sample soundscapes and nekton (i.e., fishes and mobile macroinvertebrates) at a living shoreline construction and a nearby hardened shoreline in Cedar Key, FL (USA). Diel soundscape patterns and acoustic attenuation at the two sites were also described a year following the living shoreline construction. In the acoustic sampling, the high frequency bands of both shorelines were dominated by invertebrate sounds that were influenced by season, site and time of day, while the low frequency band of the living shoreline was often dominated by a loud anthropogenic sound. About a year after the living shoreline installation—despite similar measured acoustic attenuation at both sites—the living shoreline featured louder sound pressure levels compared to the hardened shoreline, which may be particularly beneficial for promoting foundational species and other organism settlement. These results demonstrate that Gulf of Mexico intertidal habitats may have soundscape differences even within close proximity and that living shorelines may enhance acoustic characteristics in ways beneficial to continued shoreline development. This represents an important step in better understanding the relationships between habitat structures, nekton communities, and their associated soundscapes as well as the application of passive acoustic monitoring to improve coastal management and conservation.

show abstract

Ecological equivalency of living shorelines and natural marshes for fish and crustacean communities

Cited by 21 publications

References 56 publications

Property owner shoreline modification decisions vary based on their perceptions of shoreline change and interests in ecological benefits

Property owner shoreline modification decisions vary based on their perceptions of shoreline change and interests in ecological benefits

Assessing habitat enhancement by living shoreline restoration: exploring potential caveats of nekton community metrics

Intertidal Soundscapes of Hardened and Living Shorelines: A Case Study of Habitat Enhancement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About