Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Material and Methods
Tile Fabrication and Experimental Design
Results
Discussion
References
All Topics
Environmental Science
Ecology

Succession of seawall algal communities on artificial substrates

Profile image of Lawrence LiaoLawrence Liao

2016, Raffles Bulletin of Zoology

Abstract

Increasing coastal urbanisation has resulted in the extensive conversion of natural habitats with manmadehard structures, such as seawalls, which tend to support communities with low biodiversity. While seawallsare often colonised by species that can be found on natural rocky shores, some studies have shown that theircommunity structure and dynamics are markedly different. However, relative to rocky shores, ecological researchon seawalls is limited, and this is especially so in the tropics. To our knowledge, no research to date has examined,in the context of artificial coastal defences, the ecological succession of communities on substrates of varyingcomplexity near the equator. Hence, the aim of the present study is to quantify the patterns of algal succession on‘simple’ and ‘complex’ concrete tiles and granite controls mounted onto seawalls at two offshore sites in Singapore(Pulau Hantu and Kusu Island). Our results revealed the development of an algal assemblage that is typical o...

Related papers

Increasing habitat complexity on seawalls: Investigating large-and small-scale effects on fish assemblages
Ross Coleman

The construction of artificial structures in the marine environment is increasing globally. Eco-engineering aims to mitigate the negative ecological impacts of built infrastructure through designing structures to be multifunctional, benefiting both humans and nature. To date, the focus of eco-engineering has largely been on benefits for benthic invertebrates and algae. Here, the potential effect of eco-engineered habitats designed for benthic species on fish was investigated. Eco-engineered habitats (" flowerpots ") were added to an intertidal seawall in Sydney Harbour, Australia. Responses of fish assemblages to the added habitats were quantified at two spatial scales; large (among seawalls) and small (within a seawall). Data were collected during high tide using cameras attached to the seawall to observe pelagic and benthic fish. At the larger spatial scale, herbivores, planktivores, and invertebrate predators were generally more abundant at the seawall with the added flowerpots, although results were temporally variable. At the smaller spatial scale, certain benthic species were more abundant around flowerpots than at the adjacent control areas of seawall, although there was no general pattern of differences in species density and trophic group abundance of pelagic fish between areas of the seawall with or without added habitats. Although we did not find consistent, statistically significant findings throughout our study, the field of research to improve fish habitat within human-use constraints is promising and important, although it is in its early stages (it is experimental and requires a lot of trial and error).

View PDFchevron_right
The importance of water-retaining features for biodiversity on artificial intertidal coastal defence structures
Meredith Schofield, Freya J White, Louise Firth, Juliette Jackson

Diversity and Distributions, 2013

Aim Artificial coastal defence structures are proliferating in response to rising and stormier seas. These structures provide habitat for many species but generally support lower biodiversity than natural habitats. This is primarily due to the absence of environmental heterogeneity and water-retaining features on artificial structures. We compared the epibiotic communities associated with artificial coastal defence structures and natural habitats to ask the following questions: (1) is species richness on emergent substrata greater in natural than artificial habitats and is the magnitude of this difference greater at mid than upper tidal levels; (2) is species richness greater in rock pools than emergent substrata and is the magnitude of this difference greater in artificial than natural habitats; and (3) in artificial habitats, is species richness in rock pools greater at mid than upper tidal levels?

View PDFchevron_right
Hard coral assemblages on seawalls in Singapore
Dexiang Chen

Singapore's shores have been extensively modifi ed to meet the rising demands of economic and recreational activities, and seawalls are a resultant ubiquitous feature of the island state's coastline. In spite of the harsh environmental conditions, seawalls in Singapore are known to harbour rich intertidal communities. This study surveyed the hard coral assemblages at zones immediately above and below the chart datum of seawalls at the southern offshore islands. Seventeen genera of hard corals were recorded. Zones below chart datum had greater diversity (14-15 genera; 17 colonies/m 2 ) than those above (10-14 genera; 7 colonies/m 2 ) and of the physical characteristics analysed, only depth infl uenced the distribution of coral communities on seawalls. With increasing deterioration of natural reefs and degradation to loose rubble, the results indicate that seawalls can provide a suitable substrate for the recruitment and growth of hermatypic corals. If appropriately designed, seawalls can assist in the recolonisation of corals and reef communities and function as cost-effective forms of artifi cial reefs.

View PDFchevron_right
Effect of fine-scale habitat differences on algal colonisation in a coral-dominated subtropical reef
Roberto Villaça

Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 2021

Maintaining the coexistence of algae and corals depends on the interactions between them. We investigated these interactions to assess: (1) recruitment patterns of algal turfs over time in dead areas on live corals; (2) the infl uence of fi ne-scale differences in coral-dominated environments on algal colonisation; (3) the infl uence of coral as a substrate for algal recruitment; (4) the invasion potential of algal turf on live coral tissue. This study compared algal colonisation directly on dead or damaged coral areas with algal colonisation on recruitment plates in coral-dominated or-free areas at 23, 154, and 230 days. We also monitored coral colonies over 1.5 years. Filamentous and articulated coralline algae were primarily evident in the early colonisation, reaching stability after 154 days. On a fi ne scale, the coral-dominated environment showed an increase in number of algal species and coverage. However, coral substrate was selective, with fewer species recruited to this substrate compared to the artifi cial plates. Furthermore, the competitive dynamics between corals and algal turfs did not result in a winner over time. Thus, algal turf colonisation was infl uenced not only by coral substrate but also by the reef environment on a fi ne scale.

View PDFchevron_right
Impact of Seawall Type on Mollusc Size and Diversity in South Water Caye Belize: A Case Study
Ginger Fisher

Ursidae: The Undergraduate Research Journal at the University of Northern Colorado, 2021

View PDFchevron_right
Editorial: seafloor heterogeneity: artificial structures and marine ecosystem dynamics
Victoria L G Todd

Frontiers in Marine Science, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
Macroalgal responses to coastal urbanization: relative abundance of indicator species
Jose Areces Mallea

Journal of Applied Phycology, 2018

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the intertidal macroalgae community from reef structures subject to different urbanization degrees. Samplings were made in 11 beaches from the Pernambuco coast, northeastern Brazil. The sites were classified according to the level of urbanization into three classes of increasing urbanization pressure: non urbanized (NU), in urbanization process (UP), and consolidated urbanization (UC). Macroalgae were identified in situ non-destructively. A total of 53 taxa were identified, 41 of these were macroalgae. Significant differences were observed in the composition of macroalgae according to the urbanization levels, with Palisada perforata, Gelidiella acerosa, and Caulerpa spp. dominating NU and UP sites, whereas Chondracanthus acicularis, Bryopsis sp., and Ulva spp. dominated UC sites. This work shows that urbanization can have a strong effect on the structure of rocky intertidal macroalgal assemblages and highlights some macroalgae species that can be used as bioindicators for assessing the impact of urbanization on coastal shores.

View PDFchevron_right
Colonisation processes and the role of coralline algae in rocky shore community dynamics
Simon Thrush

Journal of Sea Research, 2015

Recovery from disturbance is an important attribute of community dynamics. Temperate rocky shores will experience increases in both the type and intensity of impacts under future expected global change. To gauge the community response to these potential changes in the disturbance regime it is important to assess space occupancy and the temporal dynamics of key species over the recovery process. We experimentally disturbed replicated 1m 2 plots in the lower intertidal at 5 sites along the Ligurian rocky coast (North-western Mediterranean) and assessed early succession processes over 18 months. To identify colonization processes and role of key species in affecting species richness on recovery trajectories, we monitored species composition at the cm-scale along fixed transects within the plots. Our results highlighted the role of a limited number of taxa in driving the recovery of species richness across sites, despite site variation in community composition. Settlement of new propagules and overgrowth were the principal pathway of space occupancy. We detected an important role for coralline algae, particularly the articulated Corallina elongata, in promoting the colonization of a diverse range of colonists. The present study highlights the important role played by calcifying coralline macroalgae as substrate providers for later colonists, favouring recovery of biodiversity after disturbance. This pivotal role may be compromised in a future scenario of elevated cumulative disturbance, where ocean acidification will likely depress the role of coralline algae in recovery, leading to a general loss in biodiversity and community complexity.

View PDFchevron_right
Features for Biodiversity on Artificial Intertidal Coastal Defence Structures
Martin Skov

2013

Aim Artificial coastal defence structures are proliferating in response to rising and stormier seas. These structures provide habitat for many species but generally support lower biodiversity than natural habitats. This is primarily due to the absence of environmental heterogeneity and water-retaining features on artificial structures. We compared the epibiotic communities associated with artificial coastal defence structures and natural habitats to ask the following questions: (1) is species richness on emergent substrata greater in natural than artificial habitats and is the magnitude of this difference greater at mid than upper tidal levels; (2) is species richness greater in rock pools than emergent substrata and is the magnitude of this difference greater in artificial than natural habitats; and (3) in artificial habitats, is species richness in rock pools greater at mid than upper tidal levels? Location British Isles. Methods Standard non-destructive random sampling compared the effect of habitat type and tidal height on epibiota on natural rocky shores and artificial coastal defence structures. Results Natural emergent substrata supported greater species richness than artificial substrata. Species richness was greater at mid than upper tidal levels, particularly in artificial habitats. Rock pools supported greater species richness than emergent substrata, and this difference was more pronounced in artificial than natural habitats. Rock pools in artificial habitats supported greater species richness at mid than upper tidal levels. Main conclusions Artificial structures support lower biodiversity than natural habitats. This is primarily due to the lack of habitat heterogeneity in artificial habitats. Artificial structures can be modified to provide rock pools that promote biodiversity. The effect of rock pool creation will be more pronounced at mid than upper tidal levels. The challenge now is to establish at what tidal height the effect of pools becomes negligible and to determine the rock pool dimensions for optimum habitat enhancement.

View PDFchevron_right
Community structure and functioning in intertidal rock pools: effects of pool size and shore height at different successional stages
Stephen Hawkins

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 2007

Rock pools are dynamic and intermittently isolated habitats in the rocky intertidal. They can be used as model systems to provide a more general insight into the ecology of patchy habitats, which are less amenable to experimentation, such as islands and wildlife reserves. In the present study, a range of pools of differing sizes was selected at 2 vertical levels on the shore to assess the importance of habitat size and shore height on the structure and functioning of rock pool macroalgal communities. Half of these pools were denuded of biota by scraping and chiselling, while the other half were left unmanipulated, to compare the effect of patch size on communities at different successional stages. Pool depth was shown to be markedly more important than area in determining community structure of rock pools, although its effect varied with shore height. The diversity, abundance of some macroalgal morphological groups, and algal gross primary productivity in some circumstances were correlated with pool size, whereas total algal cover generally was not. There was evidence that, even within the same morphological group, species responded differently to the influence of pool size, thus emphasising the importance of species identity when predicting responses to changes in environmental conditions (e.g. temperature stress). This study revealed the importance of pool depth over area in dictating macroalgal community structure, but also highlights the existence of various other effects of rock pool size that were more idiosyncratic.

View PDFchevron_right

References (72)

  1. Airoldi L, Abbiati M, Beck MW, Hawkins SJ, Jonsson PR, Martin D, Moschella PS, Sundelöf A, Thompson RC & Åberg P (2005) An ecological perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures. Coastal Engineering, 52(10): 1073-1087.
  2. Atilla N, Wetzel MA & Fleeger JW (2003) Abundance and colonization potential of artificial hard substrate-associated meiofauna. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 287: 273-287.
  3. Bergen SD, Bolton SM & Fridley JL (2001) Design principles for ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, 18(2): 201-210.
  4. Bertness MD, Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ & Silliman BR (2002) Do alternate stable community states exist in the Gulf of Maine rocky intertidal zone?. Ecology, 83: 3434-3448.
  5. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ & Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 119-125.
  6. Bulleri F (2005) Experimental evaluation of early patterns of colonisation of space on rocky shores and seawalls. Marine Environmental Research, 60: 355-374.
  7. Bulleri F & Chapman MG (2004) Intertidal assemblages on artificial and natural habitats in marinas on the north-west coast of Italy. Marine Biology, 145: 381-391.
  8. Bulleri F & Chapman MG (2010) The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47: 26-35.
  9. Bulleri F, Chapman MG & Underwood AJ (2004) Patterns of movement of the limpet Cellana tramoserica on rocky shores and retaining seawalls. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 281: 121-129.
  10. Bulleri F, Chapman MG & Underwood AJ (2005) Intertidal assemblages on seawalls and vertical rocky shores in Sydney Harbour, Australia. Austral Ecology, 30: 655-667.
  11. Burt J, Bartholomew A, Bauman A, Saif A & Sale PF (2009) Coral recruitment and early benthic community development on several materials used in the construction of artificial reefs and breakwater. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 373: 72-78.
  12. Butman CA (1987) Larval settlement of soft-sediment invertebrates: the spatial scales of pattern explained by active habitat selection and the emerging role of hydrodynamic processes. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 25: 113-165.
  13. Butman CA (1989) Sediment-trap experiments on the importance of hydrodynamical processes in distributing settling invertebrate larvae in near-bottom water. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 134: 37-88.
  14. Butman CA, Grassle JP & Webb CM (1988) Substrate choices made by marine larvae settling in still water and in flume flow. Nature, 333: 771-773.
  15. Chapman MG (2003) Paucity of mobile species on constructed seawalls: effects of urbanization on biodiversity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 264: 21-29.
  16. Chapman MG (2006) Intertidal seawalls as habitats for molluscs. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 72: 247-257.
  17. Chapman MG & Bulleri F (2003) Intertidal seawalls-new features of landscape in intertidal environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62: 159-172.
  18. Chapman MG & Underwood AJ (2011) Evaluation of ecological engineering of "armoured" shorelines to improve their value as habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 400: 302-313.
  19. Chou LM, Goh BPL & Lam TJ (1998) Environmental protection and biodiversity conservation in Singapore. In: Ismail G & Mohamed M (eds.) Biodiversity Conservation in Asean: Emerging Issues & Regional Needs. Asean Academic Press, UK. Pp. 214-232.
  20. Clarke KR & Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: User manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth. 190 pp.
  21. Clarke RK & Warwick RM (2001) Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Second Edition. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth, UK.
  22. Connell JH & Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist, 111(982): 1119-1144.
  23. Connell S & Glasby TM (1999) Do urban structures influence local abundance and diversity of subtidal epibiota? A case study from Sydney Harbour, Australia. Marine Environmental Research, 47(4): 373-387.
  24. Davis JLD, Lewin LA & Walther SM (2002) Artificial armoured shorelines: sites for open-coast species in a southern California bay. Marine Biology, 140: 1249-1262.
  25. Denny MW (1985) Wave forces on intertidal organisms: A case study. Limnology and Oceanography, 30(6): 1171-1187.
  26. Denny MW (2006) Ocean waves, nearshore ecology, and natural selection. Aquatic Ecology, 40: 439-461.
  27. Eckman JE (1983) Hydrodynamic processes affecting benthic recruitment. Limnology and Oceanography, 28: 241-257.
  28. Fairweather PG (1988) Movements of intertidal whelks (Morula marginalba and Thais orbita) in relation to availability of prey and shelter. Marine Biology, 100(1): 63-68.
  29. Farrell TM (1991) Models and mechanisms of succession: an example from a rocky intertidal community. Ecological Monographs, 61(1): 95-113.
  30. Firth LB, Thompson RC, White FJ, Schofield M, Skov MW, Hoggart SP, Jackson J, Knights AM, & Hawkins SJ (2013) The importance of water-retaining features for biodiversity on artificial intertidal coastal defence structures. Diversity and Distributions, 19: 1275-1283.
  31. Fletcher RL & Callow ME (1992) The settlement, attachment and establishment of marine algal spores. European Journal of Phycology, 27(3): 303-329.
  32. French JR & Spencer T (2001) Sea-level rise. In: Warren A & French JR (eds.) Habitat conservation: managing the physical environment. John Wiley & Sons, UK. Pp. 305-347.
  33. Gray JS (1997) Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 153-175.
  34. Hammond A (1992) World resources 1992-1993: Towards sustainable development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  35. Hawkins SJ & Hartnoll RG (1983) Grazing of intertidal algae by marine invertebrates. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 21: 195-282.
  36. Heck KL & Valentine JF (2007) The primacy of top-down effects in shallow benthic ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts, 30(3): 371-381.
  37. Hedvall O, Moksnes P & Pihl L (1998) Active habitat selection by megalopae and juvenile shore crabs Carcinus maenas: a laboratory study in an annular flume. Hydrobiologia, 375/376: 89-100.
  38. Hilton MJ & Chou LM (1999) Sediment facies of a low-energy, meso-tidal, fringing reef, Singapore. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 20: 111-130.
  39. Hilton JH & Manning SS (1995) Conservation of coastal habitats in Singapore: indicators of unsustainable development. Environmental Conservation, 22: 307-322.
  40. Huang D, Todd PA, Chou LM, Ang KH, Boon PY, Cheng L & Ling H (2006) Effects of shore height and visitor pressure on the diversity and distribution of four intertidal taxa at Labrador Beach, Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 54(2): 477-484.
  41. Kaehler S & Williams GA (1998) Early development of algal assemblages under different regimes of physical and biotic factors on a seasonal tropical rocky shore. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 172: 61-71.
  42. Kohler KE & Gill SM (2006) Coral Point Count with Excel extensions (CPCe): A Visual Basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Computers and Geosciences, 32(9): 1259-1269.
  43. Lai S (2013) Big shoes to fill: the potential of seawalls to function as rocky shore surrogates. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 729 pp.
  44. Lai S, Loke LHL, Hilton MJ, Bouma TJ & Todd PA (2015) The effects of urbanisation on coastal habitats and the potential for ecological engineering: A Singapore case study. Ocean & Coastal Management, 103: 78-85.
  45. Lee AC, Tan KS & Sin TM (2009a) Intertidal assemblages on coastal defence structures in Singapore I: A faunal study. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 22: 237-254.
  46. Lee AC, Liao LM & Tan KS (2009b) New records of marine algae on artificial structures and intertidal flats in coastal waters of Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 22: 5-40.
  47. Lee AC & Sin TM (2009) Intertidal assemblages on coastal defence structures in Singapore II: Contrasts between islands and the mainland. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 22: 255-268.
  48. Leonard GH, Levine JM, Schmidt PR & Bertness MD (1998) Flow-driven variation in intertidal community structure in a Maine estuary. Ecology, 79(4): 1395-1411.
  49. Loke LHL, Jachowski NR, Bouma TJ, Ladle RJ & Todd PA (2014) Complexity for Artificial Substrates (CASU): Software for creating and visualising habitat complexity. PLOS ONE, 9: e87990.
  50. Loke LHL, Ladle RJ, Bouma TJ & Todd PA (2015) Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation. Ecological Engineering, 77: 307-313.
  51. Loke LHL & Todd PA (in press) Structural complexity and component type increase intertidal biodiversity independently of area. Ecology. [doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/15-0257.1]
  52. McGuinness KA & Underwood AJ (1986) Habitat structure and the nature of communities on intertidal boulders. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 104(1): 97-123.
  53. Meadows PS & Campbell JI (1972) Habitat selection by aquatic invertebrates. In: Russell FS & Yonge CM (eds.) Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 10. Academic Press, London. Pp. 271-382.
  54. Moran MJ (1985) The timing and significance of sheltering and foraging behaviour of the predatory gastropod Morula marginalba Blainville (Muricidae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 93: 103-114.
  55. Moschella PS, Abbiati M, Åberg P, Airoldi L, Anderson JM, Bacchiocchi F, Bulleri F, Dinesen GE, Frost M, Gacia E, Granhag L, Jonsson PR, Satta MP, Sundelöf A, Thompson RC & Hawkins SJ (2005) Low-crested coastal defence structures as artificial habitats for marine life: using ecological criteria in design. Coastal Engineering, 52: 1053-1071.
  56. Nicholls RJ & Cazenave A (2010) Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science, 328(5985): 1517-1520.
  57. Norse EA (1995) Global marine biological diversity. Island Press, Washington.
  58. Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164(3877): 262-270.
  59. Petraitis PS & Dudgeon SR (2005) Divergent succession and implications for alternative states on rocky intertidal shores. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 326(1): 14-26.
  60. Petraitis PS & Latham RE (1999) The importance of scale in testing the origins of alternative community states. Ecology, 80(2): 429-442.
  61. Pister B (2009) Urban marine ecology in southern California: the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky intertidal habitat. Marine Biology, 156(5): 861-873.
  62. Savard JL, Clergeau P & Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48: 131-142.
  63. Schumacher JF, Carman ML, Estes TG, Feinberg AW, Wilson LH, Callow ME, Callow JA, Finlay JA & Brennan AB (2007) Engineered antifouling microtopographies -effect of feature size, geometry, and roughness on settlement of zoospores of the green alga Ulva. Biofouling, 23(1): 55-62.
  64. Sousa WP (2001) Natural disturbance and the dynamics of marine benthic communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD & Hay ME (eds.), Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts, USA. Pp. 85-130.
  65. Steneck RS & Watling L (1982) Feeding capabilities and limitation of herbivorous molluscs: a functional group approach. Marine Biology, 68: 299-319.
  66. Tan SK (1976) Land reclamation in Singapore. Unpublished Honours Thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 77 pp.
  67. Todd PA & Chou LM (2005) A tale of survival: Labrador Park, Singapore. Coral Reefs, 24: 391.
  68. Todd PA, Ladle RJ, Lewin-Koh NJI & Chou LM (2004) Genotype x environment interactions in transplanted clones of the massive corals Favia speciosa and Diploastrea heliopora. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 271: 167-182.
  69. Williams SL, Bracken ME & Jones E (2013) Additive effects of physical stress and herbivores on intertidal seaweed biodiversity. Ecology, 94(5): 1089-1101.
  70. Williams GA, Davies MS & Nagarkar S (2000) Primary succession on a seasonal tropical rocky shore: the relative roles of spatial heterogeneity and herbivory. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 203: 81-94.
  71. Wong PP (1988) Singapore. In: Walker HJ (ed.) Artificial structures and shorelines. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Pp. 383-392.
  72. Wong PP (1992) The newly reclaimed land. In: Gupta A & Pitts J (eds.) Physical adjustments in a changing landscape: the Singapore story. Singapore University Press, Singapore. Pp. 243-258.

Related papers

Material type and roughness influence structure of inter-tidal communities on coastal defenses
José Manuel N. Azevedo

Marine Ecology, 2016

On a global scale, urbanisation has resulted in substantial proportions of the coast being replaced by artificial structures such as marinas, breakwaters or seawalls. There is broad consensus that coastal defence structures are poor surrogates of the natural habitats they replace. Here we investigate the effect of the type and roughness of materials used for the construction of artificial structures on the biota by comparing abundances and distribution of key intertidal taxa between natural shores and coastal defences. Lower abundance of gastropods and barnacles were found on artificial coastal defence structures (regardless of the material type). At small-spatial scales, there was a significant effect of roughness which increased the abundances of key taxa. Results suggest that choice of materials used for the construction of coastal defence structures per se has little effect on community structure, but that enhanced roughness could make coastal defences better surrogates of natural habitats by supporting assemblages that are more similar to those found on natural shores.

View PDFchevron_right
Factors that structure algal communities in tropical rocky shores: what have we learned?
Edison D . Macusi

2013

Experiments in tropical rocky intertidal habitats across the globe have identified various effects of biological and physical factors on algal assemblage. High- and mid-intertidal rocky shores in tropical areas are exposed, with varying degrees, to the same physical factors such as temperature, heat, desiccation, shore height, supply of sediment and nutrients that affects temperate rocky shores. The degree of exposure to physical extremes however determines the structure of assemblage in most tropical rocky shores. The low shore is often controlled by biological factors, i.e., grazing and predation by mollusks, fishes, amphipods, crabs, and iguanas, while the high shore is mainly controlled by physical factors. It appears that the keystone species concept may not apply to tropical rocky shore communities. Reasons for this include indirect effects, overlapping food requirements and a diffuse predation due to a diverse set of assemblage that may mask the effect of one species. Present paper compare the several studies carried out in Hong Kong and Panama on tropical rocky shore consumer interactions. Studies on the effects of physical disturbances in coastal areas such as storms or typhoons are rare and there were little studies dealing with interactions of the sub tidal coralline algae and the low shore algae in tropical areas. More experimental work across a variety of spatial and temporal scales are therefore needed to determine significant biological and physical processes affecting the structure of algal assemblage across broad areas in the tropics.

View PDFchevron_right
Same Stone, Different Outcomes: Marine Communities on Engineered vs. Natural Rock Shores
Lucy A . D . Lockwood

2020

Directed by Professor Jarrett E. K. Byrnes The effort to protect coastal property and infrastructure from storm damage, erosion, and sea level rise has resulted in increased construction of coastal protection structures (CPS) worldwide. Researchers around the globe have found that the marine communities living on CPS differ from those living on natural rock outcroppings in the same area. We conducted a classic disturbance experiment to investigate possible differences in marine organism response and community assembly between natural and human-constructed rocky intertidal habitat along the Massachusetts coast. The one-year study used naturally occurring rock shores and human-made granite seawalls with both wave-exposed and wave-protected areas. Significant differences in both the amount of substrate utilization and the composition of the v colonizing marine community on the natural and human-engineered habitats were evident one year after the clearing disturbance. The natural rock experimental plots had a higher mean proportion of macroalgal and marine invertebrate cover overall, and regrowth was dominated by red and brown algal species. Human-engineered seawalls evidenced significantly lower mean cover proportion and dominance of green algal species. Wave exposure also had a significant effect, though less than substrate type. These experimental results raise the possibility that ongoing expansion of CPS along the Gulf of Maine and New England coast could alter coastal marine ecosystems and, over time, could have far-reaching impacts on the region's marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. vi DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is dedicated to my husband, Larry Constantine, who has supported my improbable journey from the onset with endless patience, love, and much coffee. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Jarrett Byrnes, who introduced me to biological data analysis and reintroduced me to the world of programming, and whose blending of experimental and theoretical approaches to marine ecology has challenged me and shaped my work as an intertidal ecologist. My enduring gratitude goes to Dr. Robert Chen, for convincing me to become a student once again and to join the wonderful community that is the School for the Environment at the University of Massachusetts Boston. My appreciation and thanks also go to the many excellent UMB faculty including Dr. Ron Etter, Dr. Eugene Gallagher, and Dr. Michael Sharis, whom I have had the privilege of studying under and whose knowledge and guidance have steered my development as a scientist. I have also learned from and been supported by a wonderful group of fellow graduate students both in the School for the Environment and in the Biology Department. Finally, my heartfelt thanks and admiration go to my children, Tovah and Devan, who, along with my husband, have been relentless and unfailing cheerleaders and supporters of this effort over many years. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

View PDFchevron_right
Composition and spatial variability of terrestrial algal assemblages occurring at the bases of urban walls in Europe
Fabio Rindi

Phycologia, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Patchiness in habitat distribution can enhance biological diversity of coastal engineering structures
José Manuel N. Azevedo

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2018

1. Urbanization of coastal habitats is increasing worldwide. However, most manmade structures are poor surrogates for the habitats they replace and can strongly impact the diversity and functioning of coastal habitats. 2. The value of coastal engineering can be enhanced by the provision of microhabitats that facilitate colonization by marine life. One step forward is moved in this research by combining species coexistence theory, resource patchiness, and applied ecology in order to find ways that maximize the biological diversity of coastal defence structures. 3. Featureless areas of a seawall were modified by the addition of microhabitats (resource) that were distributed in different configurations of patchiness. 4. Gastropod diversity peaked at intermediate levels of microhabitat patchiness. This appeared to be driven by different patterns of resource use among species. Gastropods dispersed longer distances on unmodified seawalls than on natural rocky shores but when microhabitats were added dispersal decreased. The ability to find microhabitats differed among species. 5. Our results confirm that patchiness in microhabitat distribution affects biodiversity. The extent of microhabitat patchiness could potentially be tailored by coastal engineers to meet specific conservation priorities: increasing diversity vs. increasing number of individuals.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Biology
  • Ecology
  • Ecological Succession
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved