Effects of landscape setting on oyster reef structure and function largely persist more than a decade post‐restoration
Effects of landscape setting on oyster reef structure and function largely persist more than a decade post‐restoration
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/rec.12651
复制
发表时间：
2018-09
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Shelby L. Ziegler;Jonathan H. Grabowski;Christopher Baillie;F. Fodrie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shelby L. Ziegler;Jonathan H. Grabowski;Christopher Baillie;F. Fodrie
长期监测对于了解恢复方法的有效性以及恢复如何增强生态系统功能至关重要。我们在恢复13年后重新考察了恢复的牡蛎礁，并量化了三种不同景观背景下利用恢复珊瑚礁的常驻和瞬变动物：在与植被栖息地隔离的泥滩上，沿着盐沼边缘，以及在海草和盐沼栖息地之间。在恢复后1-2年，泥滩上恢复的珊瑚礁与邻近海草/盐沼和仅盐沼的栖息地的珊瑚礁的发育和相关动物的差异持续了10年以上。与其他景观环境相比，在开放泥滩生境上建造的珊瑚礁的牡蛎和驻地无脊椎动物密度最高，尽管所有恢复的珊瑚礁都继续提高了当地无脊椎动物分类群（如双壳类、腹足类、十足类、多毛类等）的密度。在恢复后的珊瑚礁上，幼鱼的捕捞率相对于控制组有所提高，但与直接恢复后相比，其程度有所降低，这可能是因为珊瑚礁在潮间带内垂直生长，并且不受小型幼鱼的首选淹没状态的影响。与最初的研究结果相似，珊瑚礁的存在和景观环境并没有增加被动刺网中食鱼鱼类的捕捞率；然而，在恢复的珊瑚礁上，鱼钩和鱼线的捕获率高于非珊瑚礁控制组。研究结果表明，恢复后的生境所提供的生态系统功能和相关服务具有时空差异；因此，更好地了解不同景观环境和不同时间的服务提供是如何变化的，应该加强对这些过程和恢复决策的建模。
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.