Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Restoration Ecologyarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Restoration Ecology
Article . 2016 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Oyster reef restoration: substrate suitability may depend on specific restoration goals

Authors: Graham, Patrick M.; Palmer, Terence A.; Pollack, Jennifer Beseres;

Oyster reef restoration: substrate suitability may depend on specific restoration goals

Abstract

AbstractA limited supply of oyster shell for restoration practices has prompted investigations of alternative substrates used in construction of artificial oyster reefs. The success of oyster reef restoration projects is increasingly focused not only on oyster densities, but also on habitat provisioning for associated fauna. A subtidal oyster reef complex (0.24 km2) was restored in the Mission‐Aransas Estuary, Texas, U.S.A., in July 2013 using replicated mounds of concrete, limestone, river rock, and oyster shell substrates. Oyster and reef‐associated fauna characteristics were quantified quarterly for 15 months, using sampling trays that were deployed 3 months after construction. The highest densities of oyster spat occurred 9 months after tray deployment (July 2014, 1,264/m2), whereas juvenile oyster densities increased throughout the study period to 283/m2. Concrete (1,022/m2) and limestone (939/m2) supported the highest number of oysters over all dates. Oyster shell (1,533/m2) and concrete (1,047/m2) substrates supported the highest densities of associated motile fauna. Faunal diversity (Hill's N1) did not vary by substrate material, but did show seasonal variation. A simple benefit–cost ratio was used to indicate the localized monetary value for each of the substrates. Oyster shell and concrete substrates returned the highest benefit–cost ratio for motile fauna, while concrete yielded the highest benefit–cost ratio for oyster abundance. Incorporating benefit–cost ratios in restoration planning will allow practitioners to better integrate substrate‐specific ecological values with economic considerations and project goals to maximize return on restoration investments.

Country
United States
Related Organizations
Keywords

Gulf of Mexico, 570, Crassostrea virginica, benefit-cost ratio, 590, ecosystem service, habitat restoration

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    41
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
41
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!