Study

Blue is the new green – ecological enhancement of concrete based coastal and marine infrastructure

  • Published source details Sella I. & Perkol-Finkel S. (2015) Blue is the new green – ecological enhancement of concrete based coastal and marine infrastructure. Ecological Engineering, 84, 260-272.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Use environmentally-sensitive material on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures
  1. Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, controlled study in 2012–2014 on two subtidal breakwaters on open coastline in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Sella & Perkol-Finkel 2015) found that hole habitats created on breakwater blocks, along with pits, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, supported different macroalgae and invertebrate community composition with higher species diversity than standard-concrete blocks without added habitats, while macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundances varied depending on the species group. After 24 months, the macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity was higher on blocks with added habitats than without (data reported as Shannon index) and the community composition differed (data reported as statistical model results). Thirty species (7 mobile invertebrates, 14 non-mobile invertebrates, 9 fishes) recorded on and around blocks with added habitats were absent from blocks without. Species abundances varied on blocks with and without added habitats depending on the species group (see paper for results). It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating holes, pits, grooves, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Hole habitats were created on breakwater blocks (1 × 1 × 1 m) using a formliner. Each block had multiple cube-shaped (60 × 60 × 60 mm), cylindrical (diameter: 30 mm; depth: 100 mm) and hemispherical (diameter: 150 mm; depth: 100 mm) holes (T. Hadary pers. comms.) amongst multiple pits and grooves (number/spacing not reported). Five blocks of each of three patented ECOncreteTM materials (lower pH and different cement/additives to standard-concrete) were placed at 5–7 m depth on a concrete-block breakwater during construction in July 2012. Five standard-concrete blocks (1.7 × 1.7 × 1.7 m) without added habitats were placed on a similar breakwater 80 m away. Macroalgae and invertebrates on blocks, and fishes on and around blocks, were counted over 24 months.

     

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  2. Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, controlled study in 2012–2014 on two subtidal breakwaters on open coastline in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Sella & Perkol-Finkel 2015) found that pit habitats created on breakwater blocks, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, supported different macroalgae and invertebrate community composition with higher species diversity than standard-concrete blocks without added habitats, while macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundances varied depending on the species group. After 24 months, the macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity was higher on blocks with added habitats than without (data reported as Shannon index) and the community composition differed (data reported as statistical model results). Thirty species (7 mobile invertebrates, 14 non-mobile invertebrates, 9 fishes) recorded on and around blocks with added habitats were absent from blocks without. Species abundances varied on blocks with and without added habitats depending on the species group (see paper for results). It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating pits, holes, grooves, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Pit habitats were created on breakwater blocks (1 × 1 × 1 m) using a formliner. Each block had multiple round pits (diameter: 10 mm; depth: 5 mm; T. Hadary pers. comms.) amongst multiple holes and grooves (number/spacing not reported). Five blocks of each of three patented ECOncreteTM materials (lower pH and different cement/additives to standard-concrete) were placed at 5–7 m depth on a concrete-block breakwater during construction in July 2012. Five standard-concrete blocks (1.7 × 1.7 × 1.7 m) without added habitats were placed on a similar breakwater 80 m away. Macroalgae and invertebrates on blocks, and fishes on and around blocks, were counted over 24 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  3. Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, controlled study in 2012–2014 on two subtidal breakwaters on open coastline in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Sella & Perkol-Finkel 2015) found that groove habitats created on breakwater blocks, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, supported different macroalgae and invertebrate community composition with higher species diversity than standard-concrete blocks without added habitats, while macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundances varied depending on the species group. After 24 months, the macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity was higher on blocks with added habitats than without (data reported as Shannon index) and the community composition differed (data reported as statistical model results). Thirty species (7 mobile invertebrates, 14 non-mobile invertebrates, 9 fishes) recorded on and around blocks with added habitats were absent from blocks without. Species abundances varied on blocks with and without added habitats depending on the species group (see paper for results). It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating grooves, holes, pits, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Groove habitats were created on breakwater blocks (1 × 1 × 1 m) using a formliner. Each block had multiple irregular grooves (length: 100–600 mm; width: 5–15 mm; depth: 10 mm; T. Hadary pers. comms.) amongst multiple holes and pits (number/spacing not reported). Five blocks of each of three patented ECOncreteTM materials (lower pH and different cement/additives to standard-concrete) were placed at 5–7 m depth on a concrete-block breakwater during construction in July 2012. Five standard-concrete blocks (1.7 × 1.7 × 1.7 m) without added habitats were placed on a similar breakwater 80 m away. Macroalgae and invertebrates on blocks, and fishes on and around blocks, were counted over 24 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  4. Use environmentally-sensitive material on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, controlled study in 2012–2014 on two subtidal breakwaters on open coastline in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Sella & Perkol-Finkel 2015) found that breakwater blocks made from ECOncreteTM, along with pits, grooves and holes created on them, supported different macroalgae and invertebrate community composition with higher species diversity than standard-concrete blocks without added habitats, while macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundances varied depending on the species group. After 24 months, the macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity was higher on ECOncreteTM blocks with added habitats than standard-concrete blocks without (data reported as Shannon index) and the community composition differed (data reported as statistical model results). Thirty species (7 mobile invertebrates, 14 non-mobile invertebrates, 9 fishes) recorded on and around ECOncreteTM blocks were absent from standard blocks. Species abundances varied on materials depending on the species group (see paper for results). It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of using environmentally-sensitive material or creating grooves, pits and/or holes. Breakwater blocks (1 × 1 × 1 m) were made from three patented ECOncreteTM materials (lower pH and different cement/additives to standard concrete) using a formliner. Five of each were placed at 5–7 m depth on a concrete-block breakwater during construction in July 2012. Blocks had multiple grooves, pits and holes. Five standard-concrete blocks (1.7 × 1.7 × 1.7 m) without added habitats were placed on a similar breakwater 80 m away. Macroalgae and invertebrates on blocks, and fishes on and around blocks, were counted over 24 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

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 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