Study

Oyster reef restoration: effect of alternative substrates on oyster recruitment and nekton habitat use

  • Published source details George L.M., De S.K., Palmer T.A. & Beseres P.J. (2015) Oyster reef restoration: effect of alternative substrates on oyster recruitment and nekton habitat use. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 19, 13-22

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs

    A replicated, controlled study (year unspecified) of 10 soft seabed sites in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, USA (George et al. 2015) found that the effect of restoring reefs of eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica on oysters and reef-associated mobile decapod invertebrates and fish depended on the material used for restoration. Average oyster spat abundance was similar on all types of restoration material used (840–1,390 spat/m2) and higher than at unrestored sediment (0 spat/m2). Average spat size was higher on concrete, river rock and oyster shell (15.5–15.8 mm) than on limestone (13.2 mm) and porcelain (11.8 mm). The community composition of combined mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration material used (community data reported as graphical analyses). Average abundance of mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration material used (310–550 individual/m2) and higher than on unrestored sediment (4.5 individual/m2). Diversity was higher on any restoration material than on unrestored sediment (data reported as a diversity index). Between restoration materials, diversity was higher on porcelain and oyster shell than concrete, which were all higher than on river rock and limestone. Five trays (0.75 m2) were deployed at each of 10 sites and filled with one of five types of restoration material (concrete, porcelain, limestone, river rock, oyster shell). After four months, all trays and one bare (unrestored) sediment patch were collected using a 1 m2 grab with a 1.6 mm mesh. One 0.09 m2 quadrat was deployed on each tray. Eastern oyster spat were counted in grab and quadrat samples. The shell height of up to 20 spat/tray was measured using callipers. Mobile decapod invertebrates and fish were identified and counted.

    (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