Study

Ecological value of submerged breakwaters for habitat enhancement on a residential scale

  • Published source details Scyphers S.B., Powers S.P. & Heck K.L. (2015) Ecological value of submerged breakwaters for habitat enhancement on a residential scale. Environmental Management, 55, 383-391

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and material used

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Create artificial reefs

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and material used

    A replicated, controlled study in 2008–2010 of four artificial breakwaters in northwest Mobile Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Alabama, USA (Scyphers et al. 2015) found that breakwaters made of bags of oyster shells recruited more oysters and ribbed mussels, but did not have different species richness and abundance of small mobile animal species (invertebrates and fish combined, referred to as “nekton”), compared to “ReefBall” breakwaters, during the two years following deployment. More eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica were recorded on shell breakwaters (20 in total) than on ReefBall breakwaters (2) throughout the study period (data not statistically tested). On average across the study period, significantly more ribbed mussels Geukensia demissa were recorded on shell breakwaters (>2,500/m2) than on ReefBall breakwaters (14/m2). Across the study period, shell and ReefBall breakwaters had similar nekton species richness (shell: 2.3; ReefBall: 2.2 species/m2) and abundance (shell: 0.46; ReefBall: 0.46 individual/m2). Four artificial breakwaters made of either bags of clean oyster shells (2,000 bags/breakwater) or ReefBall modules (three rows of 41 modules/breakwater), acting as artificial reefs, were created in May 2008 along an eroding shoreline in Mobile Bay (60 m from, and parallel to, the shore; 0.75m depth). On three occasions in 2008–2010, nine modules/ReefBall breakwater and nine bags/shell breakwater were sampled. The surface area of each modules and the content of each bag were examined for live oysters and mussels. Between May 2008 and November 2009, nekton was surveyed on each side of all breakwaters using a bag seine (6.25 mm mesh) deployed over 12.5 m. All organisms were identified and counted.

  2. Create artificial reefs

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2008–2009 of six sites in northwest Mobile Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Alabama, USA (Scyphers et al. 2015) found that artificial breakwaters had more small mobile animal species (invertebrates and fish combined, referred to as “nekton”), but similar overall nekton abundance compared to adjacent mudflats 1.5 years after deployment. Artificial breakwaters had more species of nekton (2.2–2.3 species/m2) compared to adjacent mudflats (1.3 species/m2). However, breakwaters did not have statistically higher nekton abundance (0.5 individual/m2) compared to mudflats (0.1 individual/m2). Four artificial breakwaters made of either bagged oyster shells or concrete domes, acting as artificial reefs, were deployed in May 2008 along an eroding shoreline in Mobile Bay (60 m from, and parallel to the shore; 0.75 m depth). Between May 2008 and November 2009, nekton was surveyed at each breakwater and at two adjacent natural mudflats. During each survey, a bag seine (6.25 mm mesh) was deployed over 12.5 m on each side of the breakwaters and twice in the mudflats. All individuals were identified and counted.

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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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