4.6 Article

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

Journal

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
Volume 171, Issue -, Pages 51-57

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2016.01.028

Keywords

Amphibolis antarctica; Ecosystem function; Motile epifauna; Recovery; Seagrass restoration

Funding

  1. South Australian Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources
  2. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board
  3. SA Water
  4. Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Projects

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The overall intent of restoration is often not only to restore the habitat per se, but to restore the ecosystem services it supplies, and particularly to encourage the return of fauna. Seagrass meadows act as habitat for some of the most diverse and abundant animal life, and as the global loss of seagrass continues, managers have sought to restore lost meadows. We tested how quickly the epifaunal richness, abundances and community composition of experimental restoration plots recovered to that in an adjacent natural seagrass meadow relative to the recovery of seagrass per se. Seagrass structure in the restoration plots took three years to become similar to a nearby natural meadow. The recovery of epifaunal richness and total abundance, however, occurred within one year. These results suggest that although recovering habitats may not be structurally similar to undisturbed habitats, they can support similar richness and abundances of epifauna, and thus have greater economic and social value than otherwise might have been expected. Nevertheless, whilst epifaunal richness and total abundance recovered prior to the recovery of seagrass structure, full recovery of seagrass was required before the composition and relative abundances of the epifaunal community matched that of the natural seagrass meadow. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available