TY - JOUR
T1 - Incorporating facilitative interactions into small-scale eelgrass restoration
T2 - Challenges and opportunities
AU - Gagnon, Karine
AU - Christie, Hartvig
AU - Didderen, Karin
AU - Fagerli, Camilla W.
AU - Govers, Laura L.
AU - Gräfnings, Max L. E.
AU - Heusinkveld, Jannes H.T.
AU - Kaljurand, Kaire
AU - Lengkeek, Wouter
AU - Martin, Georg
AU - Meysick, Lukas
AU - Pajusalu, Liina
AU - Rinde, Eli
AU - van der Heide, Tjisse
AU - Boström, Christoffer
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Guri S. Andersen, Marijana Stenrud Brkljacic, Linn Engström, Heidi Herlevi, Teemar Püss, Luca Rugiu, Lise Tveiten, Stephanie Valdez, the Fieldwork Company, and many volunteers and students for field assistance, as well as reviewers for helpful feedback. This research received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program as part of the project MERCES: Marine Ecosystem Restoration in Changing European Seas (grant agreement No 689518). Experiments in Estonia were supported by the Estonian National Marine Monitoring program (GM, LP, KK) and the development fund of the Department of Marine Biology at the Estonian Marine Institute (GM, LP, KK). Experiments in Finland were supported by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation (project 201900244; KG) and the Åbo Akademi University Foundation Sr. (CB). Experiments in Denmark were supported by NWO/TTW‐OTP (grant 14424; KD, WL) in collaboration with private and public partners (Natuurmonumenten, STOWA, Rijkswaterstaat, Van Oord, Bureau Waardenburg, Enexio and Rodenburg Biopolymers), and by NWO/TTW‐Vidi (grant 16588; TvdH) and NWO‐VENI (grant 181.087; LLG). Experiments in Norway were carried out in close cooperation with an eelgrass restoration project funded by the County Governor of Vestfold. We declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Information:
We thank Guri S. Andersen, Marijana Stenrud Brkljacic, Linn Engstr?m, Heidi Herlevi, Teemar P?ss, Luca Rugiu, Lise Tveiten, Stephanie Valdez, the Fieldwork Company, and many volunteers and students for field assistance, as well as reviewers for helpful feedback. This research received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program as part of the project MERCES: Marine Ecosystem Restoration in Changing European Seas (grant agreement No 689518). Experiments in Estonia were supported by the Estonian National Marine Monitoring program (GM, LP, KK) and the development fund of the Department of Marine Biology at the Estonian Marine Institute (GM, LP, KK). Experiments in Finland were supported by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation (project 201900244; KG) and the ?bo Akademi University Foundation Sr. (CB). Experiments in Denmark were supported by NWO/TTW-OTP (grant 14424; KD, WL) in collaboration with private and public partners (Natuurmonumenten, STOWA, Rijkswaterstaat, Van Oord, Bureau Waardenburg, Enexio and Rodenburg Biopolymers), and by NWO/TTW-Vidi (grant 16588; TvdH) and NWO-VENI (grant 181.087; LLG). Experiments in Norway were carried out in close cooperation with an eelgrass restoration project funded by the County Governor of Vestfold. We declare no conflicts of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Restoration Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Ecological Restoration.
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - Marine ecosystem engineers such as seagrasses and bivalves create important coastal habitats sustaining high biodiversity and ecosystem services. Restoring these habitats is difficult due to the importance of feedback mechanisms that can require large-scale efforts to ensure success. Incorporating facilitative interactions could increase the feasibility and success of small-scale restoration efforts, which would limit pressure on donor sites and reduce costs and time associated with restoration. Here, we tested two methods for providing facilitation in small-scale eelgrass (Zostera marina) restoration plots across northern Europe: (1) co-restoration with blue mussels (Mytilus edulis, M. trossulus); and (2) the use of biodegradable establishment structures (BESEs). Eelgrass-mussel co-restoration showed promise in aquaria, where eelgrass growth was nearly twice as high in treatments with medium and high mussel densities than in treatments without mussels. However, this did not translate to higher shoot length or shoot densities in subsequent field experiments. Rather, hydrodynamic exposure limited both eelgrass and mussel survival, especially in the most exposed sites. The use of BESEs showed more potential in enabling small-scale restoration success: they effectively enhanced eelgrass survival and reduced mussel loss, and showed potential for enabling mussel recruitment in one site. However, eelgrass planted in BESE plots along with mussels had a lower survival rate than eelgrass planted in BESE plots without mussels. Overall, we show that though co-restoration did not work at small scales, facilitation by using artificial structures (BESEs) can increase early eelgrass survival and success of small-scale eelgrass and bivalve restoration.
AB - Marine ecosystem engineers such as seagrasses and bivalves create important coastal habitats sustaining high biodiversity and ecosystem services. Restoring these habitats is difficult due to the importance of feedback mechanisms that can require large-scale efforts to ensure success. Incorporating facilitative interactions could increase the feasibility and success of small-scale restoration efforts, which would limit pressure on donor sites and reduce costs and time associated with restoration. Here, we tested two methods for providing facilitation in small-scale eelgrass (Zostera marina) restoration plots across northern Europe: (1) co-restoration with blue mussels (Mytilus edulis, M. trossulus); and (2) the use of biodegradable establishment structures (BESEs). Eelgrass-mussel co-restoration showed promise in aquaria, where eelgrass growth was nearly twice as high in treatments with medium and high mussel densities than in treatments without mussels. However, this did not translate to higher shoot length or shoot densities in subsequent field experiments. Rather, hydrodynamic exposure limited both eelgrass and mussel survival, especially in the most exposed sites. The use of BESEs showed more potential in enabling small-scale restoration success: they effectively enhanced eelgrass survival and reduced mussel loss, and showed potential for enabling mussel recruitment in one site. However, eelgrass planted in BESE plots along with mussels had a lower survival rate than eelgrass planted in BESE plots without mussels. Overall, we show that though co-restoration did not work at small scales, facilitation by using artificial structures (BESEs) can increase early eelgrass survival and success of small-scale eelgrass and bivalve restoration.
KW - ecosystem engineers
KW - eelgrass
KW - facilitation
KW - interspecies interactions
KW - mussels
KW - restoration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104749779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/rec.13398
DO - 10.1111/rec.13398
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85104749779
SN - 1061-2971
VL - 29
JO - Restoration Ecology
JF - Restoration Ecology
IS - 5
M1 - e13398
ER -