Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorGagnon, Karine
dc.contributor.authorChristie, Hartvig C
dc.contributor.authorDidderen, Karin
dc.contributor.authorFagerli, Camilla With
dc.contributor.authorGovers, Laura L.
dc.contributor.authorGräfnings, Max L. E.
dc.contributor.authorHeusinkveld, Jannes H. T.
dc.contributor.authorKaljurand, Kaire
dc.contributor.authorLengkeek, Wouter
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Georg
dc.contributor.authorMeysick, Lukas
dc.contributor.authorPajusalu, Liina
dc.contributor.authorRinde, Eli
dc.contributor.authorvan der Heide, Tjisse
dc.contributor.authorBoström, Christoffer
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-11T07:55:31Z
dc.date.available2022-03-11T07:55:31Z
dc.date.created2022-02-28T21:13:18Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationRestoration Ecology. 2021, 29 (5), e13398.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1061-2971
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2984458
dc.description.abstractMarine ecosystem engineers such as seagrasses and bivalves create important coastal habitats sustaining high biodiversity and ecosystem services. Restoring these habitats is difficult due to the importance of feedback mechanisms that can require large-scale efforts to ensure success. Incorporating facilitative interactions could increase the feasibility and success of small-scale restoration efforts, which would limit pressure on donor sites and reduce costs and time associated with restoration. Here, we tested two methods for providing facilitation in small-scale eelgrass (Zostera marina) restoration plots across northern Europe: (1) co-restoration with blue mussels (Mytilus edulis, M. trossulus); and (2) the use of biodegradable establishment structures (BESEs). Eelgrass-mussel co-restoration showed promise in aquaria, where eelgrass growth was nearly twice as high in treatments with medium and high mussel densities than in treatments without mussels. However, this did not translate to higher shoot length or shoot densities in subsequent field experiments. Rather, hydrodynamic exposure limited both eelgrass and mussel survival, especially in the most exposed sites. The use of BESEs showed more potential in enabling small-scale restoration success: they effectively enhanced eelgrass survival and reduced mussel loss, and showed potential for enabling mussel recruitment in one site. However, eelgrass planted in BESE plots along with mussels had a lower survival rate than eelgrass planted in BESE plots without mussels. Overall, we show that though co-restoration did not work at small scales, facilitation by using artificial structures (BESEs) can increase early eelgrass survival and success of small-scale eelgrass and bivalve restoration.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleIncorporating facilitative interactions into small-scale eelgrass restoration—challenges and opportunitiesen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2021 Society for Ecological Restorationen_US
dc.source.pagenumber11en_US
dc.source.volume29en_US
dc.source.journalRestoration Ecologyen_US
dc.source.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/rec.13398
dc.identifier.cristin2006479
dc.relation.projectEC/H2020/689518en_US
dc.source.articlenumbere13398en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal