Restoration of native oysters in a highly invaded estuary

  • Published source details Zabin C.J., Wasson K. & Fork S. (2016) Restoration of native oysters in a highly invaded estuary. Biological Conservation, 202, 78-87.


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 in 2013–2015 of 12 restored reefs in the Mission-Aransas estuary, southern coast of Texas, USA (Graham et al. 2017) found that the effects of restoring reefs of eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica on oysters and reef-associated organisms, after 21 months, depended on the material used. After 21 months, the community structure of combined invertebrates and fish differed with material (data presented as a graphical analysis). The diversity of mobile organisms (fish, crabs and shrimps) was similar across material (reported as a diversity index). Oysters dominated the cover of sessile organisms on all reefs, but cover was lower on river rock (41%) compared to all other material (68–53%). Oyster abundance was higher on concrete (1,020/m2), than limestone (940/m2), oyster shell (830/m2), and river rock (600/m2). Crabs (five species combined) dominated the mobile organisms across reefs, with no effect of material on their abundance (270–440/m2). Crab biomass was higher on oyster shell (53 g/m2) and concrete (38 g/m2) than river rock (24 g/m2), but not limestone (36 g/m2). Shrimps (five species combined) were more abundant on oyster shell (140/m2) than any other material (60–120/m2). Shrimp biomass was similar on all material (3–6 g/m2). In 2013, twelve oyster reefs (152 m3) were constructed with either concrete, river rocks, limestones, or oyster shells (3 reefs/material). After three months, six trays filled with 19 L of matching material were deployed at each reef. Quarterly, one tray/reef was retrieved and mobile organisms (> 4mm) identified, counted, and dry-weighed. Oysters were counted, and their percentage cover assessed. In addition, other sessile invertebrates were assessed, and a benefit-cost ratio for each material was calculated (see paper).

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust