Fauna of Natural Seagrass and TransplantedHalodule wrightii(Shoalgrass) Beds in Galveston Bay, Texas

Abstract

We compared nekton and benthos densities and community compositions in a natural mixed seagrass bed dominated by Halodule wrightii (shoalgrass) with those found in three shoalgrass transplant sites and adjoining sand habitats in western Galveston Bay, Texas, U.S.A. Quantitative drop traps and cores were used to compare communities up to seven times over 36 months post‐transplant where transplant beds survived. Total densities of fishes, decapods, annelids, benthic crustaceans, and most dominant species were significantly higher in natural seagrass than in transplanted shoalgrass or sand habitats during most sampling periods. On occasion, fish and decapod densities were significantly higher in transplanted shoalgrass than in adjoining sand habitats. No consistent faunal differences were found among transplant sites before two of three sites failed. Taxonomic comparison of community compositions indicated that nekton and benthos communities in natural seagrass beds were usually distinct from those in transplanted beds or sand habitats, which were similar. We conclude that reestablishing a shoalgrass bed that resembles a natural seagrass bed and its faunal communities in the Galveston Bay system will take longer than 3 years, provided that transplants persist.

Evaluation of Seagrass Planting and Monitoring Techniques: Implications for Assessing Restoration Success and Habitat Equivalency

“…First, early monitoring showed that, in general, cover scores were low the first year after planting and some plots performed poorly. Reports of the lack of seagrass cover establishment in the early stages of restoration projects are common (Sheridan et al 1998, 2003; Kaldy et al 2004), possibly linked to planting stress (Thom et al 2005), bioturbation (Fonseca et al 1994), or high turbidity (Kaldy et al 2004). Yet increased cover was recorded here subsequently.…”

Habitat restoration: Early signs and extent of faunal recovery relative to seagrass recovery

“…Further, the recovery of ecosystem function rather than structure, is only infrequently used to assess restoration success (e.g. Bell et al 1993;Fonseca et al 1996;Sheridan et al 2003). As functional diversity, being the varying functional characterists of the organims residing in an ecosystem, is thought to have the greatest influence on ecosystem function (Tilman et al 1997;Dıáz & Cabido 2001), it may provide a measurable index of the restoration of ecosystem function.…”

Predicting the response of nekton assemblages to seagrass transplantations in the Venice lagoon: An approach to assess ecological restoration

“…Whereas more time may be needed for nekton assemblages to resemble reference conditions (Scapin et al, ; Sheridan, Henderson, & McMahan, ), poor reproduction and recruitment rates (Bell, Westoby, & Steffe, ) and scarce connectivity between restored and source habitats (Sogard, ) could also be involved in the observed distance of nekton assemblages with respective reference conditions for some of the sites investigated. Indeed, the overall lack of consolidated natural meadows in the project area, the smaller dimensions of plants and seasonal leaf shedding in confined areas, together with the scarcity of deeper habitats that can enhance nekton survival in stressful conditions (e.g.…”