Search for: All records

Rapid global degradation of coastal habitats can be attributed to anthropogenic activities associated with coastal development, aquaculture, and recreational surface water use. Restoration of degraded habitats has proven challenging and costly, and there is a clear need to develop novel approaches that promote resilience to human‐caused disturbances. Positive interactions between species can mitigate environmental stress and recent work suggests that incorporating positive interactions into restoration efforts may improve restoration outcomes. We hypothesized that the addition of a potential facultative mutualist, the native hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), could enhance seagrass bed recovery from disturbance. We conducted two experiments to examine the independent and interacting effects of hard clam addition and physical disturbance mimicking propeller scarring on mixed communityZostera marinaandHalodule wrightiiseagrass beds in North Carolina. Adding clams to seagrass beds exposed to experimental disturbance generally enhanced seagrass summer growth rates and autumn shoot densities. In contrast, clam addition to non‐disturbed seagrass beds did not result in any increase in seagrass growth rates or shoot densities. Clam enhancement of autumn percent cover relative to areas without clam addition was most prominent after Hurricane Dorian, suggesting that clams may also enhance seagrass resilience to repeated disturbances. By June of the next growing season, disturbed areas with clam additions had greater percent cover of seagrass than disturbed areas without clam additions. Beds that were disturbed in April had higher percent cover than areas disturbed in June of the previous growing season. Our results suggest that the timing and occurrence of physical disturbances may modify the ability of clams to facilitate seagrass resiliency and productivity. Understanding when and how to utilize positive, interspecific interactions in coastal restoration is key for improving restoration success rates.

Long‐term monitoring is vital to understanding the efficacy of restoration approaches and how restoration may enhance ecosystem functions. We revisited restored oyster reefs 13 years post‐restoration and quantified the resident and transient fauna that utilize restored reefs in three differing landscape contexts: on mudflats isolated from vegetated habitat, along the edge of salt marsh, and in between seagrass and salt marsh habitat. Differences observed 1–2 years post‐restoration in reef development and associated fauna within reefs restored on mudflats versus adjacent to seagrass/salt marsh and salt marsh‐only habitats persisted more than 10 years post‐restoration. Reefs constructed on open mudflat habitats had the highest densities of oysters and resident invertebrates compared to those in other landscape contexts, although all restored reefs continued to enhance local densities of invertebrate taxa (e.g. bivalves, gastropods, decapods, polychaetes, etc.). Catch rates of juvenile fishes were enhanced on restored reefs relative to controls, but to a lesser extent than directly post‐restoration, potentially because the reefs have grown vertically within the intertidal and out of the preferred inundation regime of small juvenile fishes. Reef presence and landscape setting did not augment the catch rates of piscivorous fishes in passive gill nets, similar to initial findings; however, hook‐and‐line catch rates were greater on restored reefs than non‐reef controls. We conclude that ecosystem functions and associated services provided by restored habitats can vary both spatially and temporally; therefore, a better understanding of how service delivery varies among landscape setting and over time should enhance efforts to model these processes and restoration decision‐making.