You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
15.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 presented to you the problem of marine pollution and through the book we explored the wide range of polluting substances with many chapters highlighting specific management approaches. Chapter 1 also highlighted that we are all potentially part of the solution to marine pollution. While pollution prevention must be considered a primary goal, research and practice that focuses on successful habitat improvement is a rapidly expanding area (e.g. Edwards et al. 2013). This chapter provides a general understanding of the restoration of marine ecosystems and includes the important role that pollution reduction (or mitigation) plays in order to gain positive outcomes.
Restoration ecology is a relatively new discipline area, particularly for marine ecosystems and has gained increased attention since the 1990s (e.g. Geist and Hawkins 2016; Basconi et al. 2020). The establishment of societies and organisations has helped to develop key principles and standards and ensure scientific rigour. For example, The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) was established in 1988 to:
“bring together academics, researchers, practitioners, artists, economists, advocates, legislators, regulators, and others who support restoration to define and deliver excellence in the field of ecological restoration”
(SER 2021) (https://www.ser.org/). It is an international society with branches in many countries and there are other similar societies, networks and organisation established in many countries of the world that help enable local on ground activities (e.g. Australian Coastal Restoration Network: https://www.acrn.org.au/). Of further interest, in 2021 the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) launched the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030, which globally encompasses environmental restoration of all degraded ecosystems including in coastal and marine environments (https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/).
Public and private partnerships and collaborations are important elements in successful restoration programs. The partnerships may be between large organisations such as The Nature Conservancy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and help to connect communities, expertise and funding. Grant opportunities also help to grow partnership and develop skills and expertise. There are many existing programs for coastal and marine ecosystem restoration in numerous countries and they most commonly focus on improvements to oyster reefs, clam beds, seagrasses, saltmarshes, mangroves, macroalgae forests and coral reefs (e.g. Bayraktarov et al. 2016; Basconi et al. 2020). Interestingly, there is now even interest in deep-sea ecosystem restoration (e.g. degraded canyons impacted by illegal dumping, litter and waste in the Mediterranean Sea (O’Conner et al. 2020). Importantly evaluating success and ecological outcomes needs to consider the desired goal and monitoring that shows a trajectory to reaching that desired goal. This evaluation helps to refine techniques, understand ecosystem services and economic benefits of the restoration (e.g. Abelson et al. 2015; Adame et al. 2019).
There is much more depth that can be explored in expert texts and a wide range of journal articles that are dedicated to marine habitat restoration. This chapter and the reference list of this chapter provides a helpful start.
15.2 What is Restoration?
There are many words used to describe habitat improvement, restoration relates to the active re-creation of favourable conditions and is similar to rehabilitation and remediation (Geist and Hawkins 2016). Rehabilitation and remediation have been suggested to represent less comprehensive restorations actions but there are many detailed definitions and arguments (Geist and Hawkins 2016). Like Geist and Hawkins (2016), this chapter will use the term restoration in a broad sense and readers are invited to explore the semantics on concepts and terminology in the wider literature for themselves.
Importantly when discussing degraded habitats, the stressors that have caused the impacts are not always pollution, they may be related to overfishing, destructive fishing such as dynamite fishing in coral reef areas, or changed physical conditions from coastal development to mention a few. In order for an ecosystem to recover, the stressors need to be alleviated and, in some cases, removing these pressures might be all that is required. These limited measures that support passive recovery are sometimes considered separate to active recovery (e.g. Elliot et al. 2007). Restoration in general should not be considered a one-off event but as an ongoing process over a time scale of years which is likely to need adaptive management (e.g. Edwards and Gomez 2007).
Sometimes ecosystems are so degraded that actions cannot re-create favourable conditions for restoration. In these instances, investment might be made in creating a replacement (or novel) ecosystem which is some form of acceptable new ecosystem that restores some ecological integrity, ecosystem services, amenity and recreational opportunities.
15.3 Key Principles of Practices in Ecological Restoration
To understand the processes required to improve ecosystem health the specific stressors acting on the site need to be identified along with the history of the site and the degree of perturbation—these can be the keys to effective decision-making to ensure success of restoration efforts (Laegdsgaard 2006). It is important to have some understanding of how restoration efforts are going to affect the ecosystems in need of improvement (i.e. Will the effort work? How does the ecosystem recover? Is it capable of recovery? How will it function? What is a measure of successful recovery?). Some of these questions can be answered with a thorough understanding of the mechanisms behind recovery and the ecology of the ecosystem. For example, knowledge of successional patterns, plant and animal physiology, environmental conditions for recruitment of keystone species, establishment and growth, diversity, amongst other ecological functions is required. These features should be incorporated into monitoring studies to assess improvement in the ecosystem condition.
As noted earlier, restoration begins with mitigating the stressors, after this, the chemical, physical and structural properties (e.g. hydrodynamics) need to be considered. Once these conditions are suitable, biological attributes generally follow. Some natural biological recovery may occur if the restoration site has connectivity with other similar habitats but active restoration is assisted by transplantation of keystone or foundation species.
As the science and practice of marine ecosystem restoration has developed, it has become evident that successful restoration and the ability to measure success requires many factors which are summarised in Table 15.1.
15.4 Cost and Success of Restoration
Average reported costs for one hectare of marine coastal habitat restoration were between US$80,000 and US$1,600,000, varying widely between ecosystem types and noting that projects may be up to 30 times cheaper in developing economies compared to developed economies (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). The categories of developing and developed economies have most recently been defined by United Nations (UN 2021).
The reviews of costs and feasibilities of marine restoration by Bayraktarov et al. (2016) and Basconi et al. (2020) are summarized in Table 15.2. Techniques are evolving and attributes of success noted in Table 15.2 may change over time. Most marine restoration projects reported in the literature have been conducted in countries with developed economies, in particular Australia, Europe and USA, although there are likely many unreported projects in countries with developing economies (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). They are mostly funded by government and private companies (as compensatory habitat) (Basconi et al. 2020). Partnerships with the government and other private, community and/or non-government entities and the development of markets for ecosystem services may provide incentives for financial investments into marine restoration projects (Murtough et al. 2002; Basconi et al. 2020).
Suitable site selection is essential for the success of restoration projects, and low survivorship of transplantations of seagrass, coral reef and mangroves has been attributed to poor site selection (Bayraktarov et al. 2016; Sheaves et al. 2021), lack of habitat-based research and limited reliable success metrics (Basconi et al. 2020). There is very limited long-term data on the success of restoration projects and long-term monitoring (e.g. 15–20 years) yet this has been commonly recommended (e.g. Hawkins et al. 2002; Bayraktarov et al. 2016; Basconi et al. 2020; Pollack et al. 2021). Although there is a cost associated with long-term monitoring, it provides valuable data to support adaptive management and improve techniques.
15.5 Marine Pollution Mitigation and Reduction
Marine ecosystems become degraded by a wide variety of threats. Degrading factors can be physical, biological or chemical (Table 15.3) and may occur simultaneously or sequentially at any one site. If these degrading factors are not mitigated the likely success of restoration projects is compromised (e.g. Sheaves et al. 2021). Mitigating measures need to target the source of the degradation. Mitigation steps in restoration projects are initiated for many reasons including marine pollution accidents (e.g. oil spills), unexpected pollution (e.g. tributyltin) and more broadly because of diffuse source inputs (e.g. catchment runoff) and coastal development (Hawkins et al. 2002). The different sources need to be managed differently and in general it is less complicated to manage point source discharges and one-off events than complex diffuse sources with numerous polluting substances (see also Chapter 1). This section introduces you to some tools and approaches that are used to mitigate pollution (Table 15.3). Where appropriate, some of these tools and approaches may be incorporated into restoration programs in coastal catchments and marine ecosystems.
15.5.1 Mitigating Coastal Catchment Discharges
Catchment runoff is a major source of pollution to coastal environments and includes a combination of point and non-point sources which may be a result of both current and legacy (historic) activities. Not all pollutants generated in catchments reach the marine environment (e.g. Waterhouse et al. 2012), in general, and logically, lower transport rates to the ocean occur for pollutants generated further upstream in catchments (e.g. Star et al. 2018). The type and amount of pollutants that reach the ocean from catchments depends on the land use, rainfall intensity and duration, geomorphology, integrity of the riparian zone, chemical behavior of specific pollutants, and other physiochemical properties of the environment (see Section 7.5.1, Chapter 7).
Mitigating Inputs from Agriculture
Agricultural activities in coastal catchments create diffuse sources of eroded soils, nutrients and pesticides that are delivered to the marine environment (Chapters 4 and 6). Management actions to mitigate inputs from agriculture have had scalability issues and sometimes limited results (e.g. Cook et al. 2013; Creighton et al. 2021; Waltham et al. 2021). However, it is important to note that mitigating activities may take several years to show measurable differences in inputs at the catchment scale (e.g. Star et al. 2018) and groundwater transport of pollutants to the ocean needs to be considered in the pathways of inputs (e.g. Carroll et al. 2021). Box 15.1 shows an example of a long-term water quality improvement plan for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, to mitigate the effects of land-based human activities including agriculture.
Diffuse nutrient runoff from agriculture can be managed directly through best practice farm management including a reduction in fertiliser use and by using tools such as cover crops (e.g. Vilas et al. 2022). However, the elimination of fertilisers is a highly unlikely proposition. Therefore, treating drainage water before it enters river systems and the ocean is an important mitigation strategy. There are several approaches used to reduce the nutrient loading in drainage water including constructed wetlands, water retention ponds, denitrifying bioreactors, riparian buffer zones and/or a combination of these. Some approaches capture the benefits that ecosystem services offer for nutrient uptake and storage (e.g. Carstensen et al. 2020; Hsu et al. 2021). Constructed wetlands and riparian buffer zones also provide biodiversity values and are forms of ecosystem restoration in their own right.
In situations where the sources are difficult to manage (e.g. low lying, low-productivity land as a source of dissolved inorganic nitrogen) land-use conversion may be appropriate (Waltham et al. 2021). Land-use conversion may include support to farmers for developing alternative crops and grazing, aquaculture opportunities or forestry, or may require buy-back to reinstate natural vegetation (Waltham et al. 2021).
The selection of the approach or combination of approaches used requires stakeholder involvement, cost benefit assessment, and consideration of the local geographical and climatic conditions including the integration of future changes such as climate and land use (e.g. Carstensen et al. 2020).
Mitigating Inputs from Urban Stormwater
Rainwater water is often captured in stormwater drainage infrastructure, particularly in heavily populated urban environments with hard surfaces and limited permeability. Urban stormwater may also be a diffuse source of pollution to the ocean, through infiltration and groundwater movement and surface runoff.
Various solutions have been developed to mitigate stormwater from urban areas carrying pollutants to estuaries and marine waters. These tools have different names around the world; Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australia and the United Kingdom, Low Impact Development (LID) in Canada and the USA, Nature-Based Solutions in the EU and Sponge Cities in China (Zhang et al. 2020). These systems are usually effective in removing various pollutants from stormwater, and some jurisdictions have regulations that require their installation as part of infrastructure development (e.g. New South Wales, Australia; State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004). Furthermore, stormwater management has additional benefits such as flood mitigation, microclimate improvement, improvement in the amenity values in urban landscapes and harvested stormwater can be a valuable water resource (Zhang et al. 2020 and references therein).
Mitigating Inputs from Municipal and Industrial Wastewater
Sewage and industrial wastewater discharges are complex mixtures including organic compounds (Chapters 8 and 12), inorganic compounds (Chapter 5) and microplastics (Chapter 9) (e.g. Mintenig et al. 2016; Prata 2018; Schernewski et al. 2020; Sridharan et al. 2021). There are excellent technologies through large- and small-scale treatment facilities to reduce the flow of chemicals to the environment. Such facilities are often legally required for developments and activities, particularly in countries with developed economies. As with all infrastructure these facilities need to be maintained since leaking and broken pipes can be a source of contaminants through groundwater inputs. Furthermore, suboptimal treatment can be caused by exceeding capacity of built infrastructure (e.g. when an urban population increases more rapidly than infrastructure updates) or poorly operating facilities.
According to the United Nations (2017), about 70% of the municipal and industrial wastewater generated by high-income countries is treated. In upper middle-income countries and lower middle-income countries that ratio drops to 38% and 28%, respectively. In low-income countries, only 8% is treated in anyway. Globally, 80% of wastewater is discharged untreated (UN 2017). Where there is limited use of treatment facilities, it is often related to a lack of financial resources (Figure 15.3). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals highlight the importance of clean water and sanitation (Goal 6) and life below the water (Goal 14) and may potentially be drawn upon to invoke action to upgrade and deliver municipal services in developing economics and reduce wastewater discharges to the marine environment.
15.6 Marine Habitat Restoration
Keystone and foundation species are essential for particular types of ecosystem structure. These species may be plants (e.g. mangroves) or animals (e.g. scleractinain corals) and we often name ecosystems after their keystone species. In essence, without these species present the ecosystems do not function. Indeed, marine ecosystem restoration attracts large amounts of funding. In the USA many coastal and marine habitat projects are funded by NOAA with an annual budget of around US$10 million (2019) that is distributed through a competitive grant submission process. In this section of the chapter, some types of marine habitat restoration are discussed. Restoration projects can be developed with basic tools and good knowledge of the ecosystem requirements but at times engineering and technology can support and enhance restoration outcomes.
15.6.1 Oyster Reefs
Oyster reefs and beds may be intertidal or subtidal biogenic structures formed by oysters living at high densities and building a habitat with significant surface complexity (Baggett et al. 2014 and references therein). Historically, most oyster restoration efforts focused on the recovery of oyster fisheries and mitigating losses from natural and anthropogenic effects. More recently there has been recognition of the valuable ecosystem services provided by oyster beds such as water biofiltration, benthic habitat for biodiversity (e.g. for epibenthic invertebrates), nutrient sequestration, shoreline stabilisation and enhanced secondary production (Baggett et al. 2014). Many of these values are now included in the goals of restoration projects (Baggett et al. 2014 and references therein). According to Bayraktarov et al. (2016), harvest sanctuaries and transplanting juvenile oysters from hatcheries achieve positive results. An example of a large-scale oyster reef restoration project is the Billion Oyster Project in New York Harbour (https://www.billionoysterproject.org/) and smaller scale work includes Lau Fau Shan and Tolo Harbour in Hong Kong (https://www.tnc.org.hk/en-hk/what-we-do/hong-kong-projects/oyster-restoration/). However, oyster bed restoration projects still have limited monitoring, even in well-known projects like in Chesapeake Bay, USA, monitoring from 1990 to 2007 was limited and project goals were not well defined (e.g. Kennedy et al. 2011). This omission has reduced adaptive management and development of standard methodologies.
The Oyster Habitat Restoration-Monitoring and Assessment Handbook by Baggett et al. (2014) was produced to address the shortfall of previous programs and to support programs to demonstrate successful outcomes. The handbook provides standard techniques (named Universal Metrics) that can be used for comparisons among sites and to help develop performance criteria. This focus on monitoring and assessment enables an understanding of the basic project performance and how the performance meets ecosystem services-based restoration goals (Baggett et al. 2014).
More recently, enhanced approaches are being considered to include, focused site selection, potential use of artificial substrates, and oyster species and selection of genotypes for seeding to support oyster survival and delivery of ecosystem services (Howie and Bishop 2021; Pollack et al. 2021). The consideration of the most suitable growth form is important because it influences ecosystem service delivery (Howie and Bishop 2021); however, trade-offs might be required depending on the goals (e.g. high elevation reefs are most effective at attenuating waves) (Hogan and Reidenbach 2022). Furthermore, oyster species and genotypes should be selected according to their environmental suitability, resilience to environmental change, and the size and shape of reefs they form (which influences ecosystem services) (Howie and Bishop 2021) (Box 15.2). Choosing stock from aquaculture or wild populations also needs to be a key consideration and will sometimes depend on availability.
15.6.2 Coral Reefs
Coral reef degradation results from many different stressors, some of which are caused by polluting substances such as nutrients (Chapter 4), metals (Chapter 5), pesticides (Chapter 7), sedimentation (Chapter 12) and atmospheric gases (Chapter 11). Other stressors such as coastal development, over harvesting, destructive fishing, invasive species, outbreaks of predatory organisms such as Crown of Thorns Starfish (Chapter 4), prolonged elevated water temperatures leading to coral bleaching and impacts from recreational activity need to be included in mitigation strategies as there may be a multitude of stressors to address at any one site (Pandolfi et al. 2003). As with all restoration projects the removal of the stressors is a key mitigation step required at the very first stage of restoration. As discussed, catchment management and sewage treatment can help remove polluting impacts such as sedimentation and chemical loads. Mitigating effects of anthropogenic temperature change and ocean acidification are more challenging undertakings and may require specific interventions such as assisted evolution (van Oppen et al. 2017). Considerations of socio-economic contexts are required to optimise recovery (Gouezo et al. 2021). Restoration of coral reefs has not yet resulted in fully functional reefs but some success has occurred on the scale of up to a few hectares (Edwards and Gomez 2007). The field of coral reef restoration has advanced rapidly over the past 10–15 years and continues to evolve.
Coral transplantation has been used in coral reef restoration efforts for many years (e.g. Ferse et al. 2021). In this method fragments of coral are taken from donor reefs and secured at the restoration sites. This strategy creates impacts at donor reefs. To help mitigate these impacts sometimes these donor colonies are taken as small fragments and then used in coral gardening or coral farming which provides more space to grow up colonies in mid water (Figure 15.5) or in benthic gardens before use at the restoration site (e.g. Feliciano et al. 2018). Other programs have grown corals from spawning in laboratory conditions and out-planted the juveniles (Guest et al. 2014; Bayraktarov et al. 2016). More recently collection of gametes from wild coral spawning events has been successfully trialled, with larvae reared in the laboratory or in floating larval pools on reefs (Harrison et al. 2021). The approximately 5-day old larvae (that are ready to settle) are then distributed by various methods directly onto target reef areas. This process is known as mass larval settlement (dela Cruz and Harrison 2017; Harrison et al. 2021) (Box 15.3). By collecting slicks of broadcast spawning corals many millions of potential recruits, that in natural conditions would not survive, are utilised. This approach takes the pressure off donor reefs that occurs with transplantation and coral gardening.
Coral genotypes that can survive extreme conditions including temperature and pH anomalies may be used as sources for selective breeding to support assisted evolution and focus recruitment strategies (van Oppen et al. 2017; Basconi et al. 2020; Rinkevich 2021). These techniques are evolving rapidly.
15.6.3 Seagrasses
Seagrasses are submerged vascular plants known to support marine biodiversity with an historic total global cover of 171,000 km2 (Green and Short 2003). Human population expansion has been considered the most serious cause of seagrass habitat loss particularly increasing contaminant inputs to the coastal oceans (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria 1996; Zenone et al. 2021). Efforts at restoration have occurred in Australia, Florida, India, Indonesia, Italy, Sweden and New Zealand (Nadiarti et al. 2021 and citations there in) and probably in other areas too that have more limited reporting. Early restoration projects occurred in Florida in the 1980s and the resource value of seagrasses was well recognised before then (Fonseca et al. 1996 and references therein). Unfortunately, global seagrass loss has been dramatic and was estimated at about 7% a year in 2009 (Waycott et al. 2009).
Well restored seagrass sites have shown longevity for many decades in both tropical and subtropical areas (Thorhaug et al. 2020). Data that can show such long-term success is a testament to well-planned restoration programs and continued funding for monitoring and on-going restoration work to counter effects from extreme weather events. However, data documenting restored ecosystem services have not been collected consistently and frequently enough to provide marine resource managers with hard data as to the ecosystem services returned, except in the Atlantic USA where fisheries food webs and carbon sequestration assessment were included in monitoring (Thorhaug et al. 2020).
The highest survival of seagrass in restoration projects used a range of techniques including transplantation of seedlings, sprigs, shoots and rhizomes (Bayraktarov et al. 2016) with methodologies and success somewhat dependant on location and species used (e.g. Zostera marina the most commonly transplanted species in temperate regions) (see also Thorhaug et al. 2020). However, reduced genetic diversity has been identified in planted seagrass beds compared to natural ones (Williams and Davis 1996) and this could lead to longer term vulnerabilities.
15.6.4 Mangroves
Global mangrove forest cover is an estimated 84,000 km2 spread across 105 countries (Hamilton and Casey 2016). Deforestation is one of the main causes of mangrove loss, however, they exist in depositional environments acting as traps for fine particles, organic matter and associated chemical and physical pollutants (see Chapters 5 and 6). For this reason, restoration projects must consider the site contamination and risk of pollutants to diversity and structure. The main reasons for restoring mangrove ecosystems include conservation and landscaping, economic security, food security and coastal protection (Field 1998).
Mangrove restoration can be conducted relatively cheaply and easily and is arguably the most established marine ecosystem restoration activity. It is relatively easy to engage community groups in planting programs and this gains similar community engagement to tree planting programs on land (Figure 15.8). Most mangrove restoration projects that achieve high survival rates include facilitation of natural recovery by planting of seeds, seedlings and propagules, investment in the planting of saplings and small trees, hydrological restoration and weed management (Bayraktarov et al. 2016).
Since 1965 Singapore has lost > 90% of its mangrove forest and attempts to restore these have had limited success (Ellison et al. 2020). However, some sites of Mangrove rehabilitation in Singapore have provided new knowledge on how to enhance ecological diversity and ecosystem services in an urbanised coastal setting. For example, the Pulau Tekong hybrid engineering project demonstrated how mangrove vegetation can be incorporated into engineered coastal defence structures (Friess 2017) and highlighted the value of multiple species plantings and matching species traits to prevailing environmental conditions (e.g. Field 1998).
Mangrove forests also sequester carbon (blue carbon) (see Chapter 11). However, estimates of above ground and underground carbon storage are variable between studies and depend upon different scenarios (e.g. Moritsch et al. 2021). More research is required to understand long-term carbon storage potential.
15.6.5 Saltmarsh
Saltmarsh are found in 99 countries throughout the world (particularly mid and high latitudes and) in the upper tidal limits of lower estuaries (Mcowen et al. 2017). The saltmarsh environment is harsh, as the community is exposed to extreme salinity, desiccation, and tidal flooding. For this reason, saltmarsh plants are known as halophytes with specialised adaptations to grow in salty conditions. Micro-elevation and the tidal inundation regime strongly influence the gradation between saltmarsh (on the landward side) and mangroves (to the water side) (Adam 2000; Green et al. 2009a). Saltmarsh require fewer tidal inundations per year compared to mangroves. The species composition is mostly contributed to by plants, but fauna groups consist of terrestrial species (e.g. birds, and bats) and aquatic species (e.g. fish, molluscs and crustaceans), with some being specialized salt marsh dwellers (Laegdsgaard 2006). The most conspicuous invertebrate fauna in saltmarshes are crustaceans and molluscs and in a comprehensive study of 65 saltmarshes around Tasmania, Australia, Richardson et al. (1997) found over 50 species.
Saltmarsh habitats have been degraded in the past due to their lack of perceived value and usefulness, being disregarded and used as illegal dump sites, off-road motorbiking and four-wheel driving as well as being at risk from the encroachment of urban, industrial, and agricultural development and localised runoff (e.g. Bucher and Saenger 1991; Green et al. 2009a) (Box 15.4). Furthermore, they are vulnerable to floating pollutants such as oil and plastics that are transported and deposited through tidal inundations. Today saltmarshes are valued ecological communities providing fish feeding habitat during flood tides, carbon sequestration, coastal protection and other ecological services (Mcowen et al. 2017). In some countries, they are protected habitats.
Actions such as fencing to remove cattle and recreational vehicles from saltmarsh areas, diversion of stormwater and weed removal are the most common first steps in rehabilitation for saltmarsh. Large-scale saltmarsh restoration projects have been undertaken in North America since the late 1980s (e.g. Sinicrope et al. 1990; Fell et al. 1991; Frenkel and Morlan 1991). In Australia, saltmarsh restoration occurred at the Sydney Olympic Park among other sites in the late 1990s and related research improved knowledge of germination and establishment of saltmarsh species (Burchett et al. 1998; Laegdsgaard 2006).
15.6.6 Engineering, Technology and Marine Ecosystem Restoration
Artificial habitats are sometimes developed using science and engineering technologies to support restoration. An artificial reef is “a submerged structure placed on the seafloor deliberately to mimic some characteristics of a natural reef” (OSPAR 1999). Seaman (2007) highlighted the use of artificial structures in restoration projects in four case studies: kelp beds (California, USA), coral reefs (Florida, USA), oyster beds (Chesapeake Bay, USA), fisheries populations (Hong Kong, China). Engineering and technology are being used in multidisciplinary approaches to ecological restoration and collaborations help to support innovation (NRC 1994), some examples include
-
ecological engineering and augmented evolution for coral resilience to climate change (e.g. van Oppen et al. 2017; Rinkevich 2021);
-
cathodically protected steel mats to replace plastic for reseeding oyster reefs (Hunsucker et al. 2021);
-
sustainable cementitious composite substrate for oyster reef restoration using recycled oyster shells and low cement content (Uddin et al. 2021);
-
development of a lattice structure made out of a biodegradable potato starch to support seagrass restoration (MacDonnell et al. 2022); and
-
biodegradation of micro- and nano-plastics in liquid and solid waste (Zhou et al. 2022).
Successful engineering and technology solutions will likely result when biotic needs are strongly connecting with engineering and technology solutions in a feasible and cost effects manner.
15.7 Marine Species as Bioremediators
Another angle of environment improvement and contaminant removal from the environment includes bioremediation activities. The process is similar to land-based phytoremediation and other bioremediation research except using marine species. Clearly, there are ecosystems service provisions that help to mitigate pollution, such as water quality improvement from oyster beds, but there is also targeted research on particular species. Brown marine algae (Sargassum natans and Fucus vesiculosus and Turbinaria ornata) and green algae (Cladophora fascicularis, Enteromorpha prolifera and Ulva reticulata) show promising bio-sorbant properties for some metals (Brinza et al. 2007; Mudhoo et al. 2012 and references there in; Areco et al. 2021). Marine diatoms can play a role in the degradation, speciation and detoxification of chemical wastes and hazardous metals using mechanisms both external to the cell and internally (Marella et al. 2020). Marine bacteria show promise in helping to develop biotechnology for ocean clean-up of metal contaminants (Fulke et al. 2020) and plastics (Jenkins et al. 2019; Wei and Wierckx 2021). These developments provide an exciting field of discovery that focuses on environmental remediation.
15.8 Summary
There are numerous important ecological habitats in marine environments and many have been impacted by human activities, including pollution. Marine ecosystem restoration has been gaining increasing attention since the 1990s and those ecosystems that have had committed restoration works include coral reefs, seagrasses, mangroves, macroalgae forests, saltmarshes and oyster reefs. Each of these requires specific conditions for habitats to thrive and discussion and examples are provided.
Mitigating pollution and other stressors is an important first step in ecological restoration and may take several years to achieve measurable improvements, particularly for diffuse source inputs such as agricultural activities. It is important to follow the major principles of successful ecological restoration explained in Table 15.1. Section 15.5 describes important pollution mitigation practices and highlights the importance of mitigating land-based sources of stressors including nutrients, metals, pesticides, and turbidity. Other human activities such as shipping and infrastructure development also create stressors such as oil spills and noise as well as acting as vectors for invasive species.
Engineering and technology solutions play a developing role in marine pollution mitigation and ecosystems restoration activities.
15.9 Study Questions and Activities
-
1.
Describe ecological restoration in your own words.
-
2.
Create a table that highlights ecosystem features and considerations for successful coral reef, seagrass, salt marsh, mangroves and oyster reef restoration. If you think you have done a great job, send it to the editor and we may discuss including it in the next edition of this book.
-
3.
Select one of the types of pollutants shown in Table 15.3 and expand on the mitigation strategies through literature searches of your own.
-
4.
Consider the United Nations Sustainability Goals and discuss how they may be used to invoke action to upgrade and delivery municipal services in developing economies and reduce wastewater discharges to the marine environment.
Abbreviations
- NOAA:
-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- SER:
-
Society for Ecological Restoration
- UNEP:
-
United Nations Environment Program
- USA:
-
United States of America
- USD:
-
United Stated Dollar
References
Abelson A, Halpern BS, Reed DC, Orth RJ, Kendrick GA, Beck MW, Belmaker J, Krause G, Edgar GJ, Airoldi L, Brokovich E, France R, Shashar N, De Blaeij A, Stambler N, Salameh P, Shechter M, Nelson PA (2015) Upgrading marine ecosystem restoration using ecological-social concepts. Bioscience 66(2):156–163
Adam P (2000) Saltmarshes in a time of change. Environ Conserv 29:39–61
Adame MF, Roberts ME, Hamilton DP, Ndehedehe CE, Reis V, Lu J, Griffiths M, Curwen G, Ronan M (2019) Tropical coastal wetlands ameliorate nitrogen export during floods. Front Mar Sci 6:00671
AGQG (Australian Government and Queensland Governments) (2018) Reef 2050 water quality improvement plan 2017–2022. Reef water quality protection plan Secretariat, Queensland, Australia. P 40. Available at: https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/. Accessed 7 Feb 2022
Areco MM, Salomone VN, dos Santos Afonso M (2021) Ulva lactuca: a bioindicator for anthropogenic contamination and its environmental remediation capacity. Mar Environ Res 171:105468
Baggett LP, Powers SP, Brumbaugh R, Coen LD, DeAngelis B, Green J, Hancock B, Morlock S (2014) Oyster habitat restoration monitoring and assessment handbook. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, p 96. Available at http://www.oyster-restoration.org/oyster-habitat-restoration-monitoring-and-assessment-handbook/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021
Baraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074
Basconi L, Cadier C, Guerrero-Limón G (2020) Challenges in marine restoration ecology: how techniques, assessment, metrics and ecosystem valuation can lead to improved restoration success. In: Jungblut S, Liebuch V, Bode-Dalby M (eds) YOUMARES 9 -the oceans: our research, our future -proceedings of the 2018 conference for the YOUng MArine RESearcher in Oldenburg, Germany. Springer, Cham, pp 83–100
Baums IB (2008) A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Mol Ecol 17(12):2796–2811
Beck MW, Brumbaugh RD, Airoldi L, Carranza A, Coen LD, Crawford C, Defeo O, Edgar GE, Hancock B, Kay MC, Lenihan HS, Luckenbach MW, Totopova CL, Zhang G, Guo X (2011) Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. Bioscience 61(2):107–116
Benthotage C, Cole VJ, Schulz KG, Benkendorff K (2020) A review of the biology of the genus Isognomon (Bivalvia; Pteriidae) with a discussion on shellfish reef restoration potential of Isognomon ephippium. Molluscan Res 40(4):286–307
Bersoza Hernández A, Brumbaugh RD, Frederick P, Grizzle R, Luckenbach MW, Peterson CH, Angelini C (2018) Restoring the eastern oyster: how much progress has been made in 53 years? Front Ecol Environ 16(8):463–471
Brinza L, Dring M, Gavrilescu M (2007) Marine micro and macro algal species as biosorbents for heavy metals. Environ Eng Manag J 6(3):237–251
Boström-Einarsson L, Babcock RC, Bayraktarov E, Ceccarelli D, Cook N, Ferse SC, Hancock B, Harrison P, Hein M, Shaver E, Smith A, Suggett D, Stweart-Simclair PJ, Vardi T, McLeod IM (2020) Coral restoration –a systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions. PLoS ONE 15(1):e0226631
Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A (2011) Reefs at risk revisited. World Resource Institute, Washington DC, p 114. Available at: https://www.wri.org/research/reefs-risk-revisited. Accessed 11 Feb 2022
Burchett MD, Allen C, Pulkownik A, MacFarlane G (1998) Rehabilitation of saline wetland, Olympic 2000 site, Sydney (Australia). II: saltmarsh transplantation trials and application. Mar Pollut Bull 37(8–12):526–534
Bucher D, Saenger P (1991) An inventory of Australian estuaries and enclosed marine waters: an overview of results. Aust Geogr Stud 29:370–381
Carroll JM, Kelly JL, Treible LM, Bliss T (2021) Submarine groundwater discharge as a potential driver of eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, populations in Georgia: effects of groundwater on oysters. Mar Environ Res 170:105440
Carstensen MV, Hashemi F, Hoffman CC, Zak D, Audet J, Kronvang B (2020) Efficiency of mitigation measures targeting nutrient losses from agricultural drainage systems: a review. Ambio 49(11):1820–1837
Chamberland VF, Petersen D, Guest JR, Petersen U, Brittsan M, Vermeij MJ (2017) New seeding approach reduces costs and time to outplant sexually propagated corals for reef restoration. Sci Rep 7:1–12
Chan WY, Peplow LM, Menendez P, Hoffmann AA, Van Oppen MJ (2018) Interspecific hybridization may provide novel opportunities for coral reef restoration. Front Mar Sci 5:00160
Chou E, Southall BL, Robards M, Rosenbaum HC (2021) International policy, recommendations, actions and mitigation efforts of anthropogenic underwater noise. Ocean Coast Manag 202:105426
Coen LD, Brumbaugh RD, Bushek D, Grizzle R, Luckenbach MW, Posey MH, Powers SP, Tolley SG (2007) Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 341:303–307
Cook FJ, Knight JH, Silburn DM, Kookana RS, Thorburn PJ (2013) Upscaling from paddocks to catchments of pesticide mass and concentration in runoff. Agr Ecosyst Environ 180:136–147
Creighton C, Waterhouse J, Brodie J (2021) Criteria for effective regional scale catchment to reef management: a case study of Australia’s great barrier reef. Mar Pollut Bull 173:112882
Daly J, Hobbs RJ, Zuchowicz N, O’Brien JK, Bouwmeester J, Bay L, Quigley K, Hagedorn M (2022) Cryopreservation can assist gene flow on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 41:455–462
dela Cruz DWD, Villanueva RD, Baria MVB (2014) Community-based, low-tech method of restoring a lost thicket of Acropora corals. ICES J Mar Sci 71(7):1866–1875
dela Cruz DW, Harrison PL (2017) Enhanced larval supply and recruitment can replenish reef corals on degraded reefs. Sci Rep 7:13985
dela Cruz DW, Harrison PL (2020) Enhancing coral recruitment through assisted mass settlement of cultured coral larvae. PLoS One 15(11):e0242847
Edwards AJ, Gomez ED (2007) Reef restoration concepts and guidelines: making sensible management choices in the face of uncertainty. Coral Reef targeted research and capacity building for management programme. St. Luica, Australia, p 38. Available at: http://www.reefbase.org/pacific/pub_A0000003675.aspx. Accessed 11 Feb 2022
Edwards AJ (2010) Reef rehabilitation manual. The coral reef targeted research & capacity building for management program. St Lucia, Australia, p 166. Available at: https://pipap.sprep.org/content/reef-rehabilitation-manual. Accessed 11 Feb 2022
Edwards PET, Sutton-Grier AE, Coyle GE (2013) Investing in nature: restoring coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Mar Policy 38:65–71
Edwards AJ, Guest JR, Heyward AJ, Villanueva RD, Baria MV, Bollozos IS, Golbuu Y (2015) Direct seeding of mass-cultured coral larvae is not an effective option for reef rehabilitation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 525:105–116
Ellison AM, Felson AJ, Friess DA (2020) Mangrove rehabilitation and restoration as experimental adaptive management. Front Mar Sci 7:327
Elliot M, Burdon D, Hemmingway KL, Apitz SE (2007) Estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystem restoration: confusing management and science -a review of concepts. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 74:349–366
Ewere EE, Reichelt-Brushett A, Benkendorff K (2020) The neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, but not salinity, impacts the immune system of Sydney rock oyster, Saccostrea glomerata. Sci Total Environ 742:140538
Feliciano GNR, Mostrales TPI, Acosta AKM, Luzon K, Bangsal JCA, Licuanan WY (2018) Is gardening corals of opportunity the appropriate response to reverse Philippine reef decline? Restor Ecol 26(6):1091–1097
Fell PE, Murphy KA, Peck MA, Recchia ML (1991) Reestablishment of Melampus-Bidentatus (Say) and other macroinvertebrates on a restored impounded tidal marsh—comparison of populations above and below the impoundment dike. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 152(1):33–48
Ferse SCA, Hein MY, Rölfer L (2021) A survey of current trends and suggested future directions in coral transplantation for reef restoration. PLoS One 16:e0249966
Field CD (1998) Rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems: an overview. Mar Pollut Bull 37(8–12):383–392
Fitzsimons JA, Branigan S, Gillies CL, Brumbaugh RD, Cheng J, DeAnelis BM, Geselbracht L, Hancock B, Jeffs A, McDonald IM, Pofoda B, Theuerkauf SJ, Thomas M, Westby S, Zu Ermgassen PSE (2020) Restoring shellfish reefs: global guidelines for practitioners and scientists. Conserv Sci Pract 2:e198
Fonseca MS, Meyer DL, Hall MO (1996) Development of planted seagrass beds in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. II. Faunal components. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 132(1–3):141–156
Ford JR, Hamer P (2016) The forgotten shellfish reefs of coastal Victoria: documenting the loss of a marine ecosystem over 200 years since European settlement. Proc R Soc Victoria 128:87–105
Frenkel RE, Morlan JC (1991) Can we restore our saltmarshes? Lessons from the Salmon River, Oregon. Northwest Environ J 7:119–135
Friess DA (2017) Mangrove rehabilitation along urban coastlines: a Singapore case study. Reg Stud Mar Sci 16:279–289
Fulke AB, Kotian A, Giripunje MD (2020) Marine microbial response to heavy metals: mechanism, implications and future prospect. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 105:182–197
Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, Echeverría C, Gonzales E, Shaw N, Decleer K, Dixon KW (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration, 2nd edn. Ecol Restor 27(1):S1–S46
Geist J, Hawkins S (2016) Habitat recovery and restoration in aquatic ecosystems: current progress and future challenges. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 26:942–962
Gillies CL, McLead IM, Alleway HK, Cook P, Crawford C, Creighton C, Diggles B, Ford J, Hamer P, Heller-Wanger G, Lebrault E, Le Port A, Russell K, Sheaves M, Warnock B (2018) Australian shellfish ecosystems: past distribution, current status and future direction. PLoS One 13:e0190914
González-Jartín JM, de Castro Alves L, Alfonso A, Piñeiro Y, Yáñez Vilar S, Rodríguez I, González Gomez M, Vargas Osorio Z, Sainz M, Vieytes MR, Rivas J, Botana LM (2020) Magnetic nanostructures for marine and freshwater toxins removal. Chemosphere 256:127019
Gouezo M, Fabricius K, Harrison P, Golbuu Y, Doropoulos C (2021) Optimizing coral reef recovery with context-specific management actions at prioritized reefs. J Environ Manage 295:113209
Green EP, Short FT (2003) World atlas of seagrasses, Berkley, University of California Press, pp 5–26. Available at https://archive.org/details/worldatlasofseag03gree/page/n5/mode/2up. Accessed 18 Jan 2022
Green J, Reichelt-Brushett A, Jacobs SWL (2009a) Re-establishing a saltmarsh vegetation structure in a changing climate. Ecol Manag Restor 10(1):20–30
Green J, Reichelt-Brushett A, Jacobs SWL (2009b) Investigating gastropod habitat associations in saltmarsh. Wetlands (Australia) 25(1):25–37
Green J, Reichelt-Brushett A, Brushett D, Squires P, Brooks L, Jacobs SWL (2010) An investigation of soil algal abundance using chlorophyll a in a subtropical saltmarsh after surface restoration. Wetlands 30:87–98
Guest JR, Baria MV, Gomez ED, Heyward AJ, Edwards AJ (2014) Closing the circle: is it feasible to rehabilitate reefs with sexually propagated corals? Coral Reefs 33:45–55
Grabowski JH, Brumbaugh RD, Conrad RF, Keeler AG, Opaluch JJ, Peterson CH, Piehler MF, Powers SP, Smyth AR (2012) Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. Bioscience 62(10):900–909
Hamilton SE, Casey D (2016) Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21). Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:729–738
Harrison PL, Wallace CC (1990) Reproduction, dispersal and recruitment of scleractinian corals. In: Dubinsky Z (ed) Ecosystems of the world, 25. Coral Reefs. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam, pp 133–207
Harrison PL, Villanueva R, dela Cruz DW (2016) Coral reef restoration using mass coral larval reseeding. Final report to Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Project SRA FIS/2011/031, June 2016, P 60
Harrison PL, dela Cruz DW, Cameron KA, Cabaitan PC (2021) Increased coral larval supply enhances recruitment for coral and fish habitat restoration. Front Mar Sci 8:750210
Harrison PL (2011) Sexual reproduciton of scleractinian corals. In: Dubinsky Z, Stambler N (eds) Coral reefs: an ecosystem in transition. Springer, New York, pp 59–86
Harrison PL (2021) More sex on the reef: can coral spawning help save reefs? Feature Article. Ocean Geogr Soc 56:25–33
Hawkins SJ, Gibbs PE, Pope ND, Burt GR, Chesman BS, Bray S, Proud SV, Spence SK, Southward AJ, Langston WJ (2002) Recovery of polluted ecosystems: the case for long-term studies. Mar Environ Res 54:215–222
Heyward AJ, Smith LD, Rees M, Field SN (2002) Enhancement of coral recruitment by in situ mass culture of coral larvae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 230:113–118
Hogan S, Reidenbach MA (2022) Quantifying tradeoffs in ecosystem services under various oyster reef restoration designs. Estuar Coasts 45:677–690
Howie AH, Bishop MJ (2021) Contemporary oyster reef restoration: responding to a changing world. Front Ecol Evol 9:689915
Howlett L, Camp EF, Edmondson J, Henderson N, Suggett DJ (2021) Coral growth, survivorship and return-on-effort within nurseries at high-value sites on the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS One 16(1):e0244961
Hsu C-Y, Yan G-E, Pan K-C, Lee K-C (2021) Constructed wetlands as a landscape management practice for nutrient removal from agricultural runoff -a local practice case on the east coast of Taiwan. Water (Switzerland) 13(21):2973
Hunsucker K, Melnikov A, Gilligan M, Gardner H, Erdogan C, Weaver R, Swain G (2021) Cathodically protected steel as an alternative to plastic for oyster restoration mats. Ecol Eng 164:106210
Jenkins S, Quer AM, Fonseca C, Varrone C (2019) Microbial degradation of plastics: new plastic degraders, mixed cultures and engineering strategies. In: Kumar J, Batool R (eds) Soil microenvironment for bioremediation and polymer reduction. Scrivener Publishing, Beverly, pp 213–238
Kennedy VS, Breitburg DL, Christman MC, Luckenbach MW, Paynter K, Kramer J, Sellner KG, Dew-Baxter J, Keller C, Mann R (2011) Lessons learned from efforts to restore oyster populations in Virginia and Maryland, 1990 to 2007. J Shellfish Res 30:1–13
Lang Z, Zhou M, Zhang Q, Yin X, Li Y (2020) Comprehensive treatment of marine aquaculture wastewater by a cost-effective flow-through electro-oxidation process. Sci Total Environ 722:137812
Laegdsgaard P (2006) Ecology, disturbance and restoration of coastal saltmarsh in Australia: a review. Wetland Ecol Manag 14:379–399
Lee MKK (2021) Plastic pollution mitigation–net plastic circularity through a standardized credit system in Asia. Coast Ocean Manag 210:105733
Li L, Zuo J, Duan X, Wang S, Hu K, Chang R (2021) Impacts and mitigation measures of plastic waste: a critical review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 90:106642
Liñán-Rico V, Cruz-Ramírez A, Michel-Morfín JE, Liñán-Cabello MA (2019) Rescue and relocation of benthic organisms during an urban-port development project: Port of Manzanillo, case study. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 30(6):1137–1148
MacDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, Dixon KW (2016) International standards for the practice of ecological restoration—including principles and key concepts. Society for ecological restoration. Available at: https://cdn.ymaws.com/sites/www.ser.org/resource/resmgr/docs/SER_International_Standards.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2022
MacDonnell C, Tiling K, Encomio V, van der Heide T, Teunis M, Wouter L, Didderen K, Bouma TJ, Inglett PW (2022) Evaluating a novel biodegradable lattice structure for subtropical seagrass restoration. Aquat Bot 176:103463
Marella TK, Saxena A, Tiwari A (2020) Marine bioremediators Diatom mediated heavy metal remediation: a review. Biores Technol 350:123068
Mazzoccoli M, Altosole M, Vigna V, Bosio B, Arato E (2020) Marine pollution mitigation by waste oil recycling onboard ships: technical feasibility and need for new policy and regulations. Front Mar Sci 7:566363
Mcowen CJ, Weatherdon LV, Van Bochove J-W, Sullivan E, Blyth S, Zockler C, Stanwell-Smith D, Kingston N, Martin CS, Spalding M, Fletcher S (2017) A global map of saltmarshes. Biodivers Data J 21(5):e11764
Michalak I (2020) Chapter four -the application of seaweeds in environmental biotechnology. Adv Bot Res 95:85–111
Mintenig SM, Int-Veen I, Löder MGJ, Primpke S, Gerdts G (2016) Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res 108:365–372
Moritsch MM, Young M, Carnell P, Macreadie PI, Lovelock C, Nicholson E, Raimondi PT, Wedding LM, Ierodiaconou D (2021) Estimating blue carbon sequestration under coastal management scenarios. Sci Total Environ 777:145962
Mudhoo A, Garg VK, Wang S (2012) Removal of heavy metals by biosorption. Environ Chem Lett 10:109–117
Murtough G, Aretino B, Matysek A (2002) Creating markets for ecosystem services. AusInfo, Canberra, Australia. Available at: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/ecosystem-services. Accessed 15 Jan 2022
Nadiarti N, La Nafie YA, Priosambodo D, Umar MT, Rahim SW, Inaku DF, Musfirah NH, Paberu DA, Moore AM (2021) Restored seagrass beds support macroalgae and sea urchin communities. In: 4th international symposium on marine science and fisheries, vol 860, p 012014
NRC (National Research Council) (1994) Restoring and protecting marine habitat: the role of engineering and technology. The National Academics Press, Washington, p 212. Available at: http://nap.edu/2213. Accessed 19 Nov 2021
Occhipinti-Ambrogi A (2021) Biopollution by invasive marine non-indigenous species: a review of potential adverse ecological effects in a changing climate. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:4268
O’Conner E, Hynes S, Chen W (2020) Estimating the non-market benefit value of deep-sea ecosystem restoration: evidence from a contingent valuation study of the Dohrn Canyon in the Bay of Naples. J Environ Manage 275:1111180
Ogunola OS, Onada OA, Falaye AE (2018) Mitigation measures to avert the impacts of plastics and microplastics in the marine environment (a review). Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:9293–9310
Omori M (2019) Coral restoration research and technical developments: what we have learned so far. Mar Biol Res 15(7):377–409
OSPAR (1999) OSPAR guidelines on artificial reefs in relation to living marine resources. OSPAR Commission, London. OSPAR 99/15/1-E, Annex 6. Available at https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/costas/temas/proteccion-medio-marino/OSPAR_Artificial%20Reefs%20Guidelines_tcm30-157010.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2022
Panagopoulos A, Haralambous K-J (2020) Environmental impacts of desalination and brine treatment -challenges and mitigation measures. Mar Pollut Bull 161:111773
Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, McArdle D, McClenachan L, Newman MJH, Paredes G, Warner RR, Jackson JBC (2003) Global trajectories of the long-term decline coral reef ecosystems. Science 301:955–958
Prata JC (2018) Microplastics in wastewater: state of the knowledge on sources, fate and solutions. Mar Pollut Bull 129:262–265
Pollack JB, Palmer TA, Williams AE (2021) Medium-term monitoring reveals effects of El Niño Southern oscillation climate variability on local salinity and faunal dynamics on a restored oyster reef. PLoS ONE 16:e0255931
Quigley KM, Randall CJ, Van Oppen MJH, Bay LK (2020) Assessing the role of historical temperature regime and algal symbionts on the heat tolerance of coral juveniles. Biol Open 9:bio047316
Randall CJ, Negri AP, Quigley KM, Foster T, Ricardo GF, Webster NS, Bay LK, Harrison PL, Babcock RC, Heyward AJ (2020) Sexual production of corals for reef restoration in th Anthropocene. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 635:203–232
Richardson AMM, Swain R, Wong V (1997) The crustacean and molluscan fauna of Tasmanian saltmarshes. Proc R Soc Tasmania 131(21):30
Rinkevich B (2021) Augmenting coral adaptation to climate change via coral gardening (the nursery phase). J Environ Manage 291:112727
Sampaio FDF, Freire CA, Sampaio TVM, Vitule JRS, Fávaro LF (2015) The precautionary principle and its approach to risk analysis and quarantine related to the trade of marine ornamental fishes in Brazil. Mar Policy 51:163–168
Schernewski G, Radtke H, Hauk R, Baresel C, Olshammar M, Osinski R, Oberbeckmann S (2020) Transport and behavior of microplastics emissions from urban sources in the Baltic Sea. Front Mar Sci 8:579361
Seaman W (2007) Artificial habitats and the restoration of degraded marine ecosystems and fisheries. Hydrobiologia 580(1):143–155
Shaish L, Levy G, Gomez E, Rinkevich B (2008) Fixed and suspended coral nurseries in the Philippines: establishing the first step in the “gardening concept” of reef restoration. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 358:86–97
Sheaves M, Waltham NJ, Benham C, Bradley M, Mattone C, Deidrich A, Sheaves J, Sheaves A, Hernandez S, Dale P, Banhalmi-Zakar Z, Newlands M (2021) Restoration of marine ecosystems: understanding possible futures for optimal outcomes. Sci Total Environ 796:148845
Short FT, Wyllie-Echeverria S (1996) Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environ Conserv 23(1):17–27
Sinicrope TL, Hine PG, Warren RS, Niering WA (1990) Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Estuaries 13(1):25–30
SER (Society for Ecological Restoration) (2021) Our impact. Available at: https://www.ser.org/page/Impact. Accessed 19 Nov 2021
Sridharan S, Kumar M, Bolan NS, Singh L, Kumar S, Kumar R, You S (2021) Are microplastics destabilizing the global network of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem services? Environ Res 198:111243
Star M, Rolfe J, McCosker K, Smith R, Ellis R, Waters D, Waterhouse J (2018) Targeting for pollutant reductions in the Great Barrier Reef river catchments. Environ Sci Policy 89:365–377
Stuart-Smith SJ, Jepson PD (2017) Persistent threats need persistent counteraction: responding to PCB pollution in marine mammals. Mar Policy 84:69–75
Theuerkauf SJ, Lipcius RN (2016) Quantitative validation of a habitat suitability index for oyster restoration. Front Mar Sci 3:00064
Thorhaug A, Belaire C, Verduin JJ, Schwarz A, Kiswara W, Prathep A, Gallagher JB, Huang XP, Berlyn G, Yap T-K, Dorward S (2020) Longevity and sustainability of tropical and subtropical restored seagrass beds among Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Mar Pollut Bull 160:111544
Uddin MJ, Smith KJ, Hargis CW (2021) Development of pervious oyster shell habitat (POSH) concrete for reef restoration and living shorelines. Constr Build Mater 295:123685
UN (United Nations) (2017) 2017 UN world water development report, wastewater: the untapped resource. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/. Accessed 15 Jan 2022
UN (United Nations) (2021) World economic situation and prospects as of mid-2021. Available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-as-of-mid-2021/. Accessed 21 Nov 2021
Vakili S, Ölçer AI, Ballini F (2021) The development of a transdisciplinary policy framework for shipping companies to mitigate underwater noise pollution from commercial vessels. Mar Pollut Bull 171:112687
van Oppen MJH, Gates RD, Blackall LL, Cantin N, Chakravarti LJ, Chan WY, Cormick C, Crean A, Damjanovic K, Epstein H, Harrison PL, Jones TA, Miller M, Pears RJ, Peplow LM, Raftos DA, Schaffelke B, Stewart K, Torda G, Wachenfeld D, Weeks AR, Putnam HM (2017) Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world’s coral reefs. Glob Change Biol 23(9):3437–3448
Vilas MP, Shaw M, Rohde K, Power B, Donaldson S, Foley J, Silburn M (2022) Ten years of monitoring dissolved inorganic nitrogen in runoff from sugarcane informs development of a modelling algorithm to prioritise organic and inorganic nutrient management. Sci Total Environ 803:150019
Waltham NJ, Wegscheidl C, Volders A, Smart JCR, Hasan S, Lédée E, Waterhouse J (2021) Land use conversion to improve water quality in high DIN risk, low-lying sugarcane areas of the Great Barrier Reef catchments. Mar Pollut Bull 167:112373
Waterhouse J, Brodie J, Lewis S, Mitchell A (2012) Quantifying the sources of pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef catchments and the relative risk to reef ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull 65(4–9):394–406
Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, Calladine A, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL Jr, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy J, Short FT, Williams SL (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(30):12377–12381
Wei R, Wierckx N (2021) Editorial: microbial degradation of plastics. Front Microbiol 12:635621
Williams SL, Davis CA (1996) Population genetic analyses of transplanted eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds reveal reduced genetic diversity in southern California. Restor Ecol 4(2):163–180
Woodhead AJ, Hicks CC, Norström AV, Williams GJ, Graham NA (2019) Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. Funct Ecol 33:1023–1034
Young CN, Schopmeyer SA, Lirman D (2012) A review of reef restoration and coral propagation using the threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Bull Mar Sci 88:1075–1098
Zenone A, Pipitone C, D’anna G, La Porta B, Bacci T, Bertasi F, Bulleri C, Cacciuni A, Calvo S, Conconi S, Flavia Gravina M, Mancusi C, Piazzi A, Targusi M, Tomasello A, Badalamenti F (2021) Stakeholders’ attitudes about the transplantations of the mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica as a habitat restoration measure after anthropogenic impacts: a Q methodology approach. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13(21):12216
Zhang K, Bach PM, Mathios J, Dotto CBS, Deletic A (2020) Quantifying the benefits of stormwater harvesting for pollution mitigation. Water Res 171:115395
Zhou Y, Kumar M, Sarsaiya S, Sirohi R, Awasthi SK, Sindhu R, Binod P, Pandey A, Bolan NS, Zhang Z, Singh L, Kumar S (2022) Challenges and opportunities in bioremediation of micro-nano plastics: a review. Sci Total Environ 802:149823
Zockler C, Stanwell-Smith D, Kingston N, Martin CS, Spalding M, Fletcher S (2017) A global map of saltmarshes. Biodivers Data J 5:e11764
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reichelt-Brushett, A. (2023). Pollution Mitigation and Ecological Restoration. In: Reichelt-Brushett, A. (eds) Marine Pollution – Monitoring, Management and Mitigation . Springer Textbooks in Earth Sciences, Geography and Environment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10127-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10127-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10126-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10127-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)