Cargando…
A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation
Artificial reefs (ARs) have been used on coral reefs for ecological research, conservation, and socio-cultural purposes since the 1980s. We examined spatio-temporal patterns in AR deployment in tropical and subtropical coral reefs (up to 35° latitude) and evaluated their efficacy in meeting conserva...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8782470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35061746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261964 |
_version_ | 1784638322320080896 |
---|---|
author | Higgins, Emily Metaxas, Anna Scheibling, Robert E. |
author_facet | Higgins, Emily Metaxas, Anna Scheibling, Robert E. |
author_sort | Higgins, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | Artificial reefs (ARs) have been used on coral reefs for ecological research, conservation, and socio-cultural purposes since the 1980s. We examined spatio-temporal patterns in AR deployment in tropical and subtropical coral reefs (up to 35° latitude) and evaluated their efficacy in meeting conservation objectives, using a systematic review of the scientific literature. Most deployments (136 studies) were in the North Atlantic and Central Indo-Pacific in 1980s – 2000s, with a pronounced shift to the Western Indo-Pacific in 2010s. Use of ARs in reef restoration or stressor mitigation increased markedly in response to accelerating coral decline over the last 2 decades. Studies that evaluated success in meeting conservation objectives (n = 51) commonly reported increasing fish abundance (55%), enhancing habitat quantity (31%) or coral cover (27%), and conserving target species (24%). Other objectives included stressor mitigation (22%), provision of coral nursery habitat (14%) or source populations (2%) and addressing socio-cultural and economic values (16%). Fish (55% of studies) and coral (53%) were the most commonly monitored taxa. Success in achieving conservation objectives was reported in 33 studies. Success rates were highest for provision of nursery habitat and increasing coral cover (each 71%). Increasing fish abundance or habitat quantity, mitigating environmental impacts, and attaining socio-cultural objectives were moderately successful (60–64%); conservation of target species was the least successful (42%). Failure in achieving objectives commonly was attributed to poor AR design or disruption by large-scale bleaching events. The scale of ARs generally was too small (m(2) –10s m(2)) to address regional losses in coral cover, and study duration too short (< 5 years) to adequately assess ecologically relevant trends in coral cover and community composition. ARs are mostly likely to aid in reef conservation and restoration by providing nursery habitat for target species or recruitment substrate for corals and other organisms. Promoting local socio-cultural values also has potential for regional or global impact by increasing awareness of coral reef decline, if prioritized and properly monitored. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8782470 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87824702022-01-22 A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation Higgins, Emily Metaxas, Anna Scheibling, Robert E. PLoS One Research Article Artificial reefs (ARs) have been used on coral reefs for ecological research, conservation, and socio-cultural purposes since the 1980s. We examined spatio-temporal patterns in AR deployment in tropical and subtropical coral reefs (up to 35° latitude) and evaluated their efficacy in meeting conservation objectives, using a systematic review of the scientific literature. Most deployments (136 studies) were in the North Atlantic and Central Indo-Pacific in 1980s – 2000s, with a pronounced shift to the Western Indo-Pacific in 2010s. Use of ARs in reef restoration or stressor mitigation increased markedly in response to accelerating coral decline over the last 2 decades. Studies that evaluated success in meeting conservation objectives (n = 51) commonly reported increasing fish abundance (55%), enhancing habitat quantity (31%) or coral cover (27%), and conserving target species (24%). Other objectives included stressor mitigation (22%), provision of coral nursery habitat (14%) or source populations (2%) and addressing socio-cultural and economic values (16%). Fish (55% of studies) and coral (53%) were the most commonly monitored taxa. Success in achieving conservation objectives was reported in 33 studies. Success rates were highest for provision of nursery habitat and increasing coral cover (each 71%). Increasing fish abundance or habitat quantity, mitigating environmental impacts, and attaining socio-cultural objectives were moderately successful (60–64%); conservation of target species was the least successful (42%). Failure in achieving objectives commonly was attributed to poor AR design or disruption by large-scale bleaching events. The scale of ARs generally was too small (m(2) –10s m(2)) to address regional losses in coral cover, and study duration too short (< 5 years) to adequately assess ecologically relevant trends in coral cover and community composition. ARs are mostly likely to aid in reef conservation and restoration by providing nursery habitat for target species or recruitment substrate for corals and other organisms. Promoting local socio-cultural values also has potential for regional or global impact by increasing awareness of coral reef decline, if prioritized and properly monitored. Public Library of Science 2022-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8782470/ /pubmed/35061746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261964 Text en © 2022 Higgins et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Higgins, Emily Metaxas, Anna Scheibling, Robert E. A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
title | A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
title_full | A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
title_fullStr | A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
title_short | A systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
title_sort | systematic review of artificial reefs as platforms for coral reef research and conservation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8782470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35061746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261964 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT higginsemily asystematicreviewofartificialreefsasplatformsforcoralreefresearchandconservation AT metaxasanna asystematicreviewofartificialreefsasplatformsforcoralreefresearchandconservation AT scheiblingroberte asystematicreviewofartificialreefsasplatformsforcoralreefresearchandconservation AT higginsemily systematicreviewofartificialreefsasplatformsforcoralreefresearchandconservation AT metaxasanna systematicreviewofartificialreefsasplatformsforcoralreefresearchandconservation AT scheiblingroberte systematicreviewofartificialreefsasplatformsforcoralreefresearchandconservation |