Study

Nitrogen loading alters seagrass ecosystem structure and support of higher trophic levels

  • Published source details Deegan L.A., Wright A., Ayvazian S.G., Finn J.T., Golden H., Merson R.R. & Harrison J. (2002) Nitrogen loading alters seagrass ecosystem structure and support of higher trophic levels. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 12, 193-212

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 1990 of eight estuarine plots in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts, North Atlantic Ocean, USA (Deegan et al. 2002) found that four months after restoration of common eelgrass Zostera marina beds by removing macroalgae, abundance of mobile invertebrates (decapods) had increased and was higher in restored than unrestored plots, but abundance of sessile invertebrates had not increased. Prior to restoration, all plots had similar abundance of decapods (restored: 24 vs unrestored: 27/m2) and sessile invertebrates (26,000 vs 22,000/m2). After four months, decapod abundance had increased and was higher in restored (82) than unrestored plots (35/m2), while sessile invertebrate abundance had decreased overall and remained similar across plots (restored: 5,000; unrestored: 8,000/m2). Following restoration, macroalgae biomass decreased in all plots (restored: from 96 to 20; unrestored: from 127 to 33 g/m2), and eelgrass abundance increased in all plots and was higher in restored plots (restored: from 3 to 19; unrestored: from 3 to 7 shoots/m2). Two 25 × 25 m experimental areas were selected, each with four 100 m2 plots. In May 1990, eelgrass was restored in one randomly selected area by manually removing macroalgae weekly. A second area was left unrestored. Plots were surveyed in April and monthly in June–September. Sessile invertebrates (>0.5 mm) were sampled in 3 plots/area using two cores (0.073 m2) and counted. Macroalgae were obtained from the cores and dry-weighed. Decapods (> 3 mm) were sampled using one 1 m2 throw net/plot and counted. Eelgrass shoots were counted along one 14 m2 diagonal transect/plot.

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust