Standard Presentation 2024 Australian Marine Sciences Association Annual Meeting combined with NZMSS

How animals respond to coastal restoration and why this is important (#287)

Michael Sievers 1 2 , Christopher J Brown 1 2 , Maria Fernanda Adame Vivanco 1 2 , Christina A Buelow 1 2 , Ana B Bugnot 3 , Ellen Ditria 1 2 , Kimberly A Finlayson 2 , Robin Hale 4 , Michaela E Kitchingman 1 2 , Andria Ostrowski 1 2 , Ryan M Pearson 1 4 , Megan I Saunders 5 , Brian R Silliman 6 , Stephen E Swearer 7 , Mischa P Turschwell 1 2 , Stephanie R Valdez 6 , Rod M Connolly 1 2
  1. Coastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  2. Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia
  3. CSIRO Environment, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
  4. Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
  5. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
  6. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina, USA
  7. Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia

Animals are often being overlooked in restoration planning, efforts, and evaluations of success. These ‘non-habitat forming’ animals can enhance or degrade ecosystem function, persistence, and resilience, and are important for the provision of beneficial services. Understanding when, why, and how to manipulate or support animals could therefore enhance coastal restoration outcomes. In support of this approach, I will discuss actions that could lead to better outcomes using case studies to illustrate practical approaches. It is also important to understand how animals utilise restored sites, and I will describe the results and implications of a global meta-analysis of animal responses to coastal restoration. We found that animal abundances and diversity at restored sites were greater than at degraded (61% and 35%, respectively) and unstructured (42% and 37%) control sites, and similar to those at natural reference sites (both within 2%). Individuals in restored sites were similar in condition to those within reference sites, suggesting restored sites provide necessary resources. However, responses among projects were highly variable and rarely related to restored site maturity or characteristics, presenting a challenge for predicting outcomes and highlighting the need to improve restoration techniques, monitoring, and reporting.