Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration |
| |
| Authors: | Lesley P Baggett Sean P Powers Robert D Brumbaugh Loren D Coen Bryan M DeAngelis Jennifer K Greene Boze T Hancock Summer M Morlock Brian L Allen Denise L Breitburg David Bushek Jonathan H Grabowski Raymond E Grizzle Edwin D Grosholz Megan K La Peyre Mark W Luckenbach Kay A McGraw Michael F Piehler Stephanie R Westby Philine S E zu Ermgassen |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, U.S.A.;2. Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, AL, U.S.A.;3. The Nature Conservancy, Big Pine Key, FL, U.S.A.;4. Department of Biological Sciences and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University, Ft. Pierce, FL, U.S.A.;5. URI Graduate School of Oceanography, The Nature Conservancy, Narragansett, RI, U.S.A.;6. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, U.S.A.;7. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Silver Spring, MD, U.S.A.;8. Puget Sound Restoration Fund, Bainbridge Island, Washington, D.C, U.S.A.;9. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, U.S.A.;10. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Rutgers University, Point Norris, NJ, U.S.A.;11. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, U.S.A.;12. Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, U.S.A.;13. University of California, Davis, CA, U.S.A.;14. U. S. Geological Survey, Louisiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA, U.S.A.;15. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, U.S.A.;16. University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences, Moorehead City, NC, U.S.A.;17. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K. |
| |
| Abstract: | Restoration of degraded ecosystems is an important societal goal, yet inadequate monitoring and the absence of clear performance metrics are common criticisms of many habitat restoration projects. Funding limitations can prevent adequate monitoring, but we suggest that the lack of accepted metrics to address the diversity of restoration objectives also presents a serious challenge to the monitoring of restoration projects. A working group with experience in designing and monitoring oyster reef projects was used to develop standardized monitoring metrics, units, and performance criteria that would allow for comparison among restoration sites and projects of various construction types. A set of four universal metrics (reef areal dimensions, reef height, oyster density, and oyster size–frequency distribution) and a set of three universal environmental variables (water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen) are recommended to be monitored for all oyster habitat restoration projects regardless of their goal(s). In addition, restoration goal‐based metrics specific to four commonly cited ecosystem service‐based restoration goals are recommended, along with an optional set of seven supplemental ancillary metrics that could provide information useful to the interpretation of prerestoration and postrestoration monitoring data. Widespread adoption of a common set of metrics with standardized techniques and units to assess well‐defined goals not only allows practitioners to gauge the performance of their own projects but also allows for comparison among projects, which is both essential to the advancement of the field of oyster restoration and can provide new knowledge about the structure and ecological function of oyster reef ecosystems. |
| |
| Keywords: | Crassostrea virginica criteria eastern oyster ecosystem services monitoring Olympia oyster Ostrea lurida reefs |
|
|
