Evidence on the ecological and physical effects of built structures in shallow, tropical coral reefs: a systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Shallow, tropical coral reefs face compounding threats from climate change, habitat degradation due to coastal development and pollution, impacts from storms and sea-level rise, and pulse disturbances like blast fishing, mining, dredging, and ship groundings that reduce reef height and complexity. One approach toward restoring coral reef physical structure from such impacts is deploying built structures of artificial, natural, or hybrid (both artificial and natural) origin. Built structures range from designed modules and repurposed materials to underwater sculptures and intentionally placed natural rocks. Restoration practitioners and coastal managers increasingly consider incorporating - and in many cases have already begun to incorporate - built structures into coral reef-related applications, yet synthesized evidence on the ecological (coral-related; e.g., coral growth, coral survival) and physical performance of built structures in coral ecosystems across a variety of contexts (e.g., restoration, coastal protection, mitigation, tourism) is not readily available to guide decisions. To help fill this gap and inform management decisions, we systematically mapped the global distribution and abundance of published evidence on the ecological (coral-related) and physical performance of built structure interventions in shallow (≤ 30 m), tropical (35°N to 35°S) coral ecosystems. METHODS: To identify potentially relevant articles, we used predefined and tested strategies to search two indexing platforms, one bibliographic database, two open discovery citation indexes, one web-based search engine, one novel literature discovery tool, 19 organizational websites, and information requested from stakeholders. Discovered articles were screened according to preset eligibility criteria first by title and abstract and second by full text. Articles included during full text screening were coded to extract metadata following a predefined framework. We analyzed and visualized the evidence base to answer our primary and secondary research questions and to identify knowledge clusters and gaps. Findings are reported in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Our search discovered > 20,000 potentially relevant unique articles, of which 258 were included in the systematic map. The evidence base spans 50 countries, and the volume of evidence increased over the past five decades. Built structures were most commonly installed for coral restoration (61%) or coastal protection (12%). Structures were predominately characterized as artificial (87%), with fewer hybrid or natural interventions. Evidence clusters existed for intentionally designed artificial structures and outcomes associated with coral-related ecological performance, including coral mortality, growth, recruitment, cover, and diversity. Pronounced evidence gaps occurred at the intersection of several ecological coral-related performance outcomes (e.g., connectivity, microbiome) across all types of built structures; gaps also existed across most ecological coral-related outcomes for artwork and repurposed artificial structures. Physical performance of built structures was most frequently evaluated for outcomes related to waves (n = 14) and sediment and morphology (n = 11) with pervasive evidence gaps across other outcomes like storm surge and water level. CONCLUSIONS: While the systematic map highlighted several evidence clusters, it also revealed pronounced evidence gaps surrounding the coral-related ecological and physical performance of built structures in coral ecosystems. The compiled evidence base will help inform policy, management, and future consideration of built structures in reef-related applications, including habitat restoration, environmental mitigation, and coastal protection. Map findings also point to promising future research avenues, such as investigating seascape-scale ecological effects of and the physical performance of built structures.

Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration.

Ecosystem restoration can increase the health and resilience of nature and humanity. As a result, the international community is championing habitat restoration as a primary solution to address the dual climate and biodiversity crises. Yet most ecosystem restoration efforts to date have underperformed, failed, or been burdened by high costs that prevent upscaling. To become a primary, scalable conservation strategy, restoration efficiency and success must increase dramatically. Here, we outline how integrating ten foundational ecological theories that have not previously received much attention - from hierarchical facilitation to macroecology - into ecosystem restoration planning and management can markedly enhance restoration success. We propose a simple, systematic approach to determining which theories best align with restoration goals and are most likely to bolster their success. Armed with a century of advances in ecological theory, restoration practitioners will be better positioned to more cost-efficiently and effectively rebuild the world's ecosystems and support the resilience of our natural resources.

Shipwreck ecology: Understanding the function and processes from microbes to megafauna.

An estimated three million shipwrecks exist worldwide and are recognized as cultural resources and foci of archaeological investigations. Shipwrecks also support ecological resources by providing underwater habitats that can be colonized by diverse organisms ranging from microbes to megafauna. In the present article, we review the emerging ecological subdiscipline of shipwreck ecology, which aims to understand ecological functions and processes that occur on shipwrecks. We synthesize how shipwrecks create habitat for biota across multiple trophic levels and then describe how fundamental ecological functions and processes, including succession, zonation, connectivity, energy flow, disturbance, and habitat degradation, manifest on shipwrecks. We highlight future directions in shipwreck ecology that are ripe for exploration, placing a particular emphasis on how shipwrecks may serve as experimental networks to address long-standing ecological questions.

What evidence exists on the performance of nature-based solutions interventions for coastal protection in biogenic, shallow ecosystems? A systematic map protocol.

BACKGROUND: Anthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten the capacity of ecosystems to deliver a variety of services, including protecting coastal communities from hazards like flooding and erosion. Human interventions aim to buffer against or overcome these threats by providing physical protection for existing coastal infrastructure and communities, along with added ecological, social, or economic co-benefits. These interventions are a type of nature-based solution (NBS), broadly defined as actions working with nature to address societal challenges while also providing benefits for human well-being, biodiversity, and resilience. Despite the increasing popularity of NBS for coastal protection, sometimes in lieu of traditional hardened shorelines (e.g., oyster reefs instead of bulkheads), gaps remain in our understanding of whether common NBS interventions for coastal protection perform as intended. To help fill these knowledge gaps, we aim to identify, collate, and map the evidence base surrounding the performance of active NBS interventions related to coastal protection across a suite of ecological, physical, social, and economic outcomes in salt marsh, seagrass, kelp, mangrove, shellfish reef, and coral reef systems. The resulting evidence base will highlight the current knowledge on NBS performance and inform future uses of NBS meant for coastal protection. METHODS: Searches for primary literature on performance of NBS for coastal protection in shallow, biogenic ecosystems will be conducted using a predefined list of indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, and organizational databases and websites, as well as an online search engine and novel literature discovery tool. All searches will be conducted in English and will be restricted to literature published from 1980 to present. Resulting literature will be screened against set inclusion criteria (i.e., population, intervention, outcome, study type) at the level of title and abstract followed by full text. Screening will be facilitated by a web-based active learning tool that incorporates user feedback via machine learning to prioritize articles for review. Metadata will be extracted from articles that meet inclusion criteria and summarized in a narrative report detailing the distribution and abundance of evidence surrounding NBS performance, including evidence clusters, evidence gaps, and the precision and sensitivity of the search strategy.

What evidence exists on the ecological and physical effects of built structures in shallow, tropical coral reefs? A systematic map protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shallow, tropical coral reefs face compounding threats from habitat degradation due to coastal development and pollution, impacts from storms and sea-level rise, and pulse disturbances like blast fishing, mining, dredging, and ship groundings that reduce coral reefs' height and variability. One approach toward restoring coral reef structure from these threats is deploying built structures. Built structures range from engineered modules and repurposed materials to underwater sculptures and intentionally placed natural rocks. Restoration practitioners and coastal managers increasingly consider incorporating built structures, including nature-based solutions, into coral reef-related applications. Yet, synthesized evidence on the ecological and physical performance of built structure interventions across a variety of contexts (e.g., restoration, coastal protection, mitigation, tourism) is not readily available to guide decisions. To help inform management decisions, here we aim to document the global evidence base on the ecological and physical performance of built structures in shallow (≤ 30 m) tropical (35° N to 35° S latitude) coral ecosystems. The collated evidence base on use cases and associated ecological and physical outcomes of built structure interventions can help inform future consideration of built structures in reef restoration design, siting, and implementation. METHOD: To discover evidence on the performance of built structures in coral reef-related applications, such as restoration, mitigation, and coastal protection, primary literature will be searched across indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, a web-based search engine, a novel literature discovery tool, and organizational websites. The geographic scope of the search is global, and there is no limitation to temporal scope. Primary literature will be screened first at the level of title and abstract and then at the full text level against defined eligibility criteria for the population, intervention, study type, and outcomes of interest. Metadata will be extracted from studies that pass both screening levels. The resulting data will be analyzed to determine the distribution and abundance of evidence. Results will be made publicly available and reported in a systematic map that includes a narrative description, identifies evidence clusters and gaps, and outlines future research directions on the use of built structures in coral reef-related applications.

Artificial habitats host elevated densities of large reef-associated predators.

Large predators play important ecological roles, yet many are disproportionately imperiled. In marine systems, artificial reefs are often deployed to restore degraded reefs or supplement existing reefs, but it remains unknown whether these interventions benefit large predators. Comparative field surveys of thirty artificial and natural reefs across ~200 km of the North Carolina, USA coast revealed large reef-associated predators were more dense on artificial than natural reefs. This pattern was associated with higher densities of transient predators (e.g. jacks, mackerel, barracuda, sharks) on artificial reefs, but not of resident predators (e.g., grouper, snapper). Further analyses revealed that this pattern of higher transient predator densities on artificial reefs related to reef morphology, as artificial reefs composed of ships hosted higher transient predator densities than concrete reefs. The strength of the positive association between artificial reefs and transient predators increased with a fundamental habitat trait-vertical extent. Taller artificial reefs had higher densities of transient predators, even when accounting for habitat area. A global literature review of high trophic level fishes on artificial and natural habitats suggests that the overall pattern of more predators on artificial habitats is generalizable. Together, these findings provide evidence that artificial habitats, especially those like sunken ships that provide high vertical structure, may support large predators.

Artificial reefs facilitate tropical fish at their range edge.

Spatial planning increasingly incorporates theoretical predictions that artificial habitats assist species movement at or beyond range edges, yet evidence for this is uncommon. We conducted surveys of highly mobile fauna (fishes) on artificial habitats (reefs) on the southeastern USA continental shelf to test whether, in comparison to natural reefs, artificial reefs enhance local abundance and biomass of fishes at their poleward range margins. Here, we show that while temperate fishes were more abundant on natural reefs, tropical, and subtropical fishes exhibited higher abundances and biomasses on deep (25-35 m) artificial reefs. Further analyses reveal that this effect depended on feeding guilds because planktivorous and piscivorous but not herbivorous fishes were more abundant on artificial reefs. This is potentially due to heightened prey availability on and structural complexity of artificial reefs. Our findings demonstrate that artificial habitats can facilitate highly mobile species at range edges and suggest these habitats assist poleward species movement.

Flat and complex temperate reefs provide similar support for fish: Evidence for a unimodal species-habitat relationship.

Structural complexity, a form of habitat heterogeneity, influences the structure and function of ecological communities, generally supporting increased species density, richness, and diversity. Recent research, however, suggests the most complex habitats may not harbor the highest density of individuals and number of species, especially in areas with elevated human influence. Understanding nuances in relationships between habitat heterogeneity and ecological communities is warranted to guide habitat-focused conservation and management efforts. We conducted fish and structural habitat surveys of thirty warm-temperate reefs on the southeastern US continental shelf to quantify how structural complexity influences fish communities. We found that intermediate complexity maximizes fish abundance on natural and artificial reefs, as well as species richness on natural reefs, challenging the current paradigm that abundance and other fish community metrics increase with increasing complexity. Naturally occurring rocky reefs of flat and complex morphologies supported equivalent abundance, biomass, species richness, and community composition of fishes. For flat and complex morphologies of rocky reefs to receive equal consideration as essential fish habitat (EFH), special attention should be given to detecting pavement type rocky reefs because their ephemeral nature makes them difficult to detect with typical seafloor mapping methods. Artificial reefs of intermediate complexity also maximized fish abundance, but human-made structures composed of low-lying concrete and metal ships differed in community types, with less complex, concrete structures supporting lower numbers of fishes classified largely as demersal species and metal ships protruding into the water column harboring higher numbers of fishes, including more pelagic species. Results of this study are essential to the process of evaluating habitat function provided by different types and shapes of reefs on the seafloor so that all EFH across a wide range of habitat complexity may be accurately identified and properly managed.