Library

This page organizes various scientific literature and policy legislation which play crucial roles in outlining restoration procedures and implications. Use this compilation as a shortcut for understanding more about the ecological and economic benefits of marine vegetation projects!

Browse by subject:

UCLA IoES Practicums

The Institute of the Environment and Sustainability’s practicum is an annual project that offers seniors the ability to produce tangible scientific work. As part of UCLA’s Environmental Science Major, this specific practicum is a recurring project focused on researching the effects and mitigation strategies of ocean acidification in California Waters. The 2019-2020 project is the most recent of 4 projects regarding ocean acidification; the previous three final reports are located below. You can also find out more about the practicum on the IoES Website, as well as a host of other projects focused on different environmental topics.

  • 2016 - 2017
    Geographic Focus: Palos Verdes, CA
    Motivation

    With ocean acidification on the rise, the 2016-2017 practicum team members, Rebecca Ash, Candace Chang, Kathleen Lo, Ariel Pezner, Jeric Rosas, and Kelli Wright set out to determine how kelp forests could affect ocean acidification.

    Kelp is known to alter the chemical composition of the water around them. However, at the time, the extent of kelp’s ability to combat ocean acidification had not yet been fully explored. Due to a massive decrease in canopy size, The Bay Foundation was spearheading a restoration project off the coast of Palos Verdes. This restoration area was analyzed by the practicum team in an effort to determine the efficacy of this, and similar sites, as refuges from rising acidification.

    Methods

    Using sampling tools, flow-through sensors, and drones, the team took a holistic approach to understanding the nuances of the kelp forest habitat. They measured multiple aspects of water chemistry including:

    • Conductivity
    • Temperature
    • Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
    • Salinity
    • Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)
    • Pressure

    Additionally, using a combination of flow-through sensors and other sampling techniques, the team measured the abundance of phytoplankton in an effort to characterize the limitations of their results.

    In order to show the importance of such habitats, they also conducted an in-depth literature review of commercially and culturally important species that live within kelp forests; specifically focusing on how they may react to rising acidification. Lastly, the team attempted to understand the spatial scale of any results they collected by using a combination of dissolved CO2 readings from a flow through sensor and drone aerial footage.

    Results

    Through this research they were able to find that:

    1. Kelp forests show promise when it comes to acting as refuges to ocean acidification
    2. Kelp restorations sites can have significant spatial, chemical, and temporal alterations of the water around them
    3. This kelp site seemed to show an increase in pH (decrease in ocean acidification) as the restored site began to grow and expand

    If true, this has major implications on the efficacy and importance of restoration practices regarding kelp forests in California. On the other hand, it is important to note that the above findings were seen even when they measured phytoplankton abundance (determining that their findings were not largely influenced by their photosynthesis rates). They acknowledged that there may have been upwelling during their sampling periods which should have lowered the pH even further.

    The graph below depicts their findings, highlighting the separation between the pH levels of offshore and within the kelp that seemingly grows as the kelp restoration site matures.

  • 2017 - 2018
    Geographic Focus: Malibu, CA / Santa Monica, CA
    Motivation

    In an effort to build upon the 2016-2017 results, the research team of Anna George, Noah Horvath, Destiny Johnson, Eileen Ly, Roajhaan Sakaki, and Shang Shi set out to better understand how marine vegetation can affect ocean acidification. By broadening their scope to include both giant kelp and eelgrass, the team developed a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between local marine habitats and water chemistry.

    With the continued increase of anthropogenic carbon emissions, this research could be imperative to better understand what future oceans will look like. As seawater absorbs these carbon emissions, oceanic acidity increases and threatens shellfish and the chemical equilibrium. If the team were to find that seagrass meadows and kelp forests can help mitigate the deleterious effects of anthropogenic ocean acidification, the students would build upon the scientific support for conservation and restoration of these protective heavens.

    Methods

    To start, the team analyzed satellite photos and sonar data to pick three separate sites:

    1. Control Sites - devoid of seagrass or kelp
    2. Kelp Forests
    3. Eelgrass Meadows

    Solstice Canyon, Malibu was determined to have all three of the above sites isolated from one another, lending itself to be the prime location to conduct their research. Using multiple flow-through sensors attached to UCLA’s research vessel Zodiac, the team began to measure the surface levels of:

    • Temperature
    • Salinity
    • Conductivity
    • Fluorescence
    • Dissolved CO2

    However, due to the tricky nature of flow-through sensors, the Dissolved CO2 sensor was found to be jammed which may have lended to certain limitations in their results.

    In addition, the team used a SmarTROLL sensor, a cylinder that can be lowered to different depths to measure a host of chemical characteristics of the water column at different depths. The characteristics that they measured included:

    • Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
    • Actual Conductivity
    • Specific Conductivity
    • Oxidation-Reduction Potential
    • Salinity
    • Total Dissolved SOlids (TDS)
    • Resistivity
    • Density
    • pH

    This sampling method - in contrast to the flow-through sensors - allowed the team to get depth profiles, completing a more holistic understanding of the chemical changes kelp and or seagrass may have upon the water column. Once the team collected their data over a period of 3 field days spanning roughly a month, they used Excel, MatLab, and Esri ArcGIS to analyze and visualize the data.

    Results

    The team was able to determine that there were, in fact, differences in all three sites. They found that while the control regions had fairly stable, more acidic ranges of pH, seagrass and kelp sites had wider ranges of pH that did trend towards more basic pH. This does prove that kelp and seagrass have some influence on the surrounding water column, however, it only implies that these habitats can reduce the amount of acidification.

    The below graphs are THE MOST significant differences between the pH levels of control sites and the respective marine vegetative habitats. Additionally, below is a spatial map depicting the separation of sample sites along the Malibu coast.

  • 2018 - 2019
    Geographic Focus: Santa Monica, CA
    Motivation

    As ocean acidification intensifies along the California coast the need for mitigation strategies is becoming more and more important. In an effort to determine how seagrass meadows could act as buffers or refuges for marine organisms, Ryan Distaso, Emma Burckert, Mackenzie Jackson, Eyal Li, Gonzalo Gutierrez, Evan Gentry, and Britanie Iraheta collected data to show to what extent this may be true.

    Similar to the motivation of the 2016-2017 practicum team, this team wanted a more in depth look into this specific species of marine vegetation, eelgrass. Moreover, they wanted to look into how the density of the meadow may affect the species ability to change the chemistry of the water column around them.

    Methods

    Similar to past practicum projects, this team used a multilateral approach, using a SmarTROLL sensor as well as niskin bottles to sample the water column at different depths. With these tools the team measured:

    • pH
    • Depth
    • Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
    • Nutrient Concentration
    • Carbonate Chemistry
    • Environmental DNA (eDNA)

    Additionally, the team took a new approach to determining the health and density of the seagrass meadows at the sampling sites. In order to do so, they mounted the pH probe as well as a GoPro camera onto a constructed PVC cage that could be lowered to the sea floor. They then inferred the density of the seagrass meadows using the bottom of the cage as a transect, thus, finding the % cover within that transect.

    Results

    What the team found was contradictory to both previous scientific data as well as their own hypothesis. They found little to no difference in the pH and dissolved oxygen levels of both high and low density sites. This discrepancy could be attributed to multiple limitations within this study, namely, a lack of high density sites and the presence of other organisms such as kelp and phytoplankton in the area. The team mentioned that in such environments, it is hard to distinguish between effects from the surrounding environment and effects caused by the seagrass in question. Future projects should focus on eliminating confounding variables in order to determine the true effects of seagrass upon the chemical composition of the water column.

    Below are data tables that depict their findings regarding differences in seagrass shoot density and pH.

    Table 1: Mean pH for Each Density Category of Eelgrass at Amarillo
    Table 3: Standard Deviation and Number of pH Samples in Each Density Category at Amarillo

Policy by US State

Policy and legislation are crucial in the conservation and restoration of marine vegetation as it compels institutions to take the necessary steps to monitor, protect, and restore at-risk nearshore habitats. Realizing the need for protecting these habitats, the federal government created the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. This act compels coastal states to take steps to monitor, conserve, and restore nearshore habitats on a local level.

  • 1972

    The Coastal Zone Management Act was passed by congress in 1972 to better protect coastal habitats. This act is administered by NOAA and outlines three national programs: the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). Many of the following state policies and policy recommendations are direct results of this act. States must create their own programs that meet the criteria of the above programs and are to be approved by NOAA. Once approved, all state and federal actions must adhere to the enforceable policies outlined by the state programs.

    Source

    • Each state must create their own Coastal Zone Management Plan that is approved by NOAA and the federal government. Below are enforceable policies and policy recommendations from states for which we found conducted restoration projects. Most of the projects we include were created in response to the federal push to conserve the US coastline. Explore our restoration map to find out more about specific projects.

    California

    • 1976

      The California Coastal Act was approved in 1976 and the overarching framework is aimed to protect, maintain, and restore the integrity of the coasts. Chapter 3-Article 4 specifically aims to marine environmental degradation by limiting coastal construction, commercial fishing, and development; and additionally acknowledges the need to protect biodiversity, marine resources, water clarity, and upstream/watershed integrity.

      Source
    • 2008

      This act establishes three committees, the Blue Ribbon Task Force (task force), the Master Plan Science Advisory Team (science team) and a stakeholder advisory group all with the goal to create a statewide MPA network through local and regional governmental action. In addition, it looks forward to the management of the MPA network established to ensure that the progress made does not go to waste.

      Source
    • 2019

      This plan created by the Ocean Protection Council (see CA Senate Bill #1363) aims to identify tangible projects, efforts, and outreach that can aid in the completion of four distinct goals:

      • Goal 1: Safeguard Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Communities in the Face of Climate Change
      • Goal 2: Advance Equity Across Ocean and Coastal Policies and Actions
      • Goal 3: Enhance Coastal and Marine Biodiversity
      • Goal 4: Improve Ocean Health through a Blue Economy

      The tangibles include, but are not limited to, releasing a scientific report in 2021 that outlines the resiliency of California coastal habitats in the face of anthropogenic stressors; as well as creating a statewide kelp research and restoration plan by 2020.

      Source
    • 2016

      A direct result of the Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program (SMBNEP) Bay Restoration Plan (BRP), this document is a broad assessment of marine habitats’ vulnerability to the following environmental stressors within the Southern California Bight:

      • Warmer atmospheric temperatures
      • Warmer water
      • Sea level rise
      • Increased drought
      • Increased storm intensity
      • Ocean acidification

      This assessment includes an overview of relevant scientific literature, an identification of the risks and opportunities posed by rapidly increasing climate change, as well as an in-depth conclusion of the vulnerabilities of habitats all along the California Coast. This document is central to the work conducted by The Bay Foundation.

      Source
    • 2018

      With the goal of creating a long term management and conservation framework for the Santa Monica Bay, this document outlines actions that should be taken in the following categories:

      1. Direct Management Actions
      2. Governance and Policy
      3. Stakeholder Education and Engagement
      4. Research and Monitoring
      5. Funding and/or Partnerships

      This document is to undergo revision every 3-5 years, with major revisions taking place every 10, including efforts to incorporate parts of the CCVA (above) and other policy and management recommendation documents. This document is central to the work conducted by The Bay Foundation

      Source
    • 2020

      This document is aimed to identify objectives, tasks, and timelines for what can be done to better conserve the Santa Monica Bay’s Estuaries. It determines that more time, funding, and effort should be focused on the reduction of nutrient pollution and increased climate resilience. The goals of this work plan include:

      1. Protect, enhance, and improve ecosystems of Santa Monica Bay and its watersheds
      2. Improve water availability
      3. Improve water quality
      4. Enhance socio-economic benefits to the public
      5. Enhance public engagement and education
      6. Mitigate impacts and increase resilience to climate change
      7. Improve monitoring and ability to assess effectiveness of management actions

      This document is central to the work conducted by The Bay Foundation

      Source
    • 2016

      This bill allows for the creation of an ocean acidification and hypoxia mitigation task force. This council makes decisions based on the best available scientific knowledge, but is subject to the availability of funding from the ocean protection council. The first meeting of the task force took place in January of 2018 and will convene annually until 2021.

      Source
    • 2016

      This bill creates the Ocean Protection Council and requires members to coordinate state agency efforts to protect and conserve California's coastal waters. Additionally, they are to create policies to facilitate the collection and sharing of scientific data relevant to the protection of coastal waters. Lastly, it creates the California Ocean Protection Trust Fund within the state agency and allows, with legislative oversight, the expenditure of funds within this trust by the Ocean Protection Council.

      Source

      • Delaware

    • 2019

      This document is in response to NOAA’s call for more resilient coastal communities. This roadmap attempts to outline the best framework to increase the conservation and restoration of coastlines in order to protect homes, communities and businesses within Delaware. The main objectives of the project are stated as:

      • Develop a catalogue of adaptation/protection measures based on the structure, infrastructure or land use impacted
      • Determine a typical cost for each adaptation/protection measure
      • Determine what ancillary activities must take place for a measure to be successful
      • Create a social and economic decision tree to guide the selection of actions
      • Identify funding sources for various actions
      • Develop outreach material and methods to effectively communicate this information to the public and government officials
      Source
    • 2009 - Last Updated

      This federally approved coastal zone management program outlines Delaware’s policies to keep resilient, healthy, and publicly available coastlines. Section 5.6: Natural Areas Management is of the most importance to marine vegetation. This section contains a framework for funding, increasing natural preserves, and restoring degraded coastal ecosystems.

      Source

      • Florida

    • Various Years

      The Florida state government, in response to climate change as well as the Coastal Zone Management Act, has been creating a network of aquatic preserves. This complete list of both completed and incomplete management plans gives an insight into how marine protected areas function, are managed, and funded.

      Source
    • 2020

      This bill creates the Nature Coast Aquatic Preserve, which contains scores of seagrass and coastal habitat. The aim of this bill is to protect the area in an essentially pristine condition for future enjoyment and use.

      Source

      • Maryland

    • 2011

      This document outlines the enforceable state policies in Maryland regarding coastal zone management. It includes overviews of the policies regarding:

      • Water Quality
      • Flood Hazards
      • Coastal Resource Management
      • Coastal Uses
      • Identify funding sources for various actions
      Source
    • 2001

      A product of Maryland’s federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program, this document defines the boundary of such management as well as outlines a grant program intended to expedite the conservation and restoration of the coastline in the face of climate change. Additionally, it reports the success and progress of the 1997 version of this document, specifically its influence on:

      1. Growth Management and Sensitive Areas Protection
      2. Nonpoint Source 2 Pollution Control
      3. Riparian Forest Buffers
      4. Economic Impacts of Growth and Land Use Change in Maryland’s Coastal Bays
      Source
    • 2008

      As stated in the name, this policy recommendation document aims to reduce the deleterious effects of sea level and coastal storms in the face of climate change. It recommends the following important steps:

      1. Take action now to protect human habitat and infrastructure from future risks
      2. Minimize risks and shift to sustainable economies and investments
      3. Guarantee the safety and well-being of Maryland’s citizens in times of foreseen and unforeseen risk
      4. Retain and expand forests, wetlands, and beaches to protect us from coastal flooding
      5. Give state and local governments the right tools to anticipate and plan for sea-level rise and climate change
      6. State and local governments must commit resources and time to assure progress
      Source
    • 2011

      This follow up report focuses more on the sector-based solutions and recommendations to a host of climate change issues. It is informed by the following sub-groups:

      • Human Health
      • Agriculture
      • Forrest and Terrestrial Ecosystems
      • Bay and Aquatic Ecosystems
      • Water Resources
      • Population Growth and Infrastructure

      While all sectors play a role in marine and watershed health, the most important recommendations to improve the conservation and restoration of near shore habitats are within:

      • Bay and Aquatic Ecosystems:
        • Advance protection of at-risk species and habitats
        • Restore critical bay and aquatic habitats to enhance resilience
        • Reduce existing stressors
        • Foster a collective response to climate change
      • Water Resources:
        • Ensure long-term safe and adequate water supply for humans and ecosystems
        • Reduce the impacts of flooding and stormwater
      Source

      • Massachusetts

    • 2011

      As a portion of the NOAA-approved Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, this document provides the state’s legal framework regarding coastal management, development, permitting, and restoration. This document includes policy information regarding the following sectors:

      • Coastal Hazards
      • Energy
      • Urban Growth
      • Habitats
      • Ocean Resources
      • Ports and Harbors
      • Public Access
      • Water Quality
      Source
    • 2008

      This document is a compilation of recommended strategies and policies by the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Task Force. It includes many important parts such as a recommendation to a “team approach to restoration” that would see a combination of governmental organizations, non-profits, and citizens chipping in to restore Massachusetts’ coastlines. This is a very comprehensive document that outlines potentials for restoration (how you might start) and recommendation for further governmental leadership.

      Source

      • New York

    • 2009

      The overarching goal of this document is to recommend strategies to maintain the current acreage of seagrass in New York State (at that time) as well as increase it by 10% the next year. It recommends to:

      • Create and implement a multi‐jurisdictional Seagrass Protection Act or other legislative action
      • Establish and implement numeric water quality criteria/standards to protect seagrass habitat, including the control of eutrophication
      • Develop management and gear restrictions necessary to regulate the use of destructive shellfish harvesting methods
      • Conduct educational outreach to inform the public of findings
      • Create and distribute an annual seagrass report card
      Source
    • 2012

      This act enacts the recommendations made by the Final Report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force. It specifically outlines the departmental responsibilities but does not state the name of the department.

      Source

      • Rhode Island

    • 2007

      In an attempt to preserve the natural areas left, Rhode Island’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force approved this document to recommend actions be taken. Some of the actions recommended include:

      • Prioritizes state agency leadership for administration and implementation
      • Continuation of current research on the relative risks of various transport vectors
      • Coordination with industry to minimize invasions
      • Development of a regional web page and database on AIS distribution
      • Various educational initiatives
      • Rhode Island Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan
      Source

      • Texas

    • 2018

      This document begins to tease apart the knowledge gaps and feasibility for restoration of the Texas coastline. In order to create more resilient and biodiverse coastlines this report advises to:

      • Summarize the development and comparison of alternative approaches to reduce risk of coastal storm damage and restore the Texas Coast
      • Describe the current decision point in selecting a plan and seek public comment
      • Disclose potential impacts of plans considered to comply with NEPA
      Source

      • Virginia

    • Various Years

      This site hosts a compilation of Virginia’s acts, projects, and policies that appease the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This site includes the following:

      Source

      • Washington

    • 1989

      This document creates the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council and outlines its duties which include:

      1. Serve as a forum for communication concerning coastal waters issues, including issues related to: resource management; shellfish aquaculture; marine and coastal hazards; ocean energy; open ocean aquaculture; coastal waters research; education; and other coastal marine-related issues
      2. Serve as a point of contact for, and collaborate with, the federal government, regional entities, and other state governments regarding coastal waters issues
      3. Provide a forum to discuss coastal waters resource policy, planning, and management issues; provide either recommendations or modifications, or both, of principles, and, when appropriate, mediate disagreements
      4. Serve as an interagency resource to respond to issues facing coastal communities and coastal waters resources in a collaborative manner
      5. Identify public and private funding opportunities for the activities of the council and for relevant programs of member entities
      6. Provide recommendations to the governor, the legislature, state and local agencies on specific coastal waters resource management issues

      This act also aims to conserve and research alternatives to liquid fossil fuels found along the coastline.

      Source
    • 1971

      Among many sections intended to conserve the public use and health of Washington’s coastlines. This act includes the following relevant sections:

      These sections outline exemptions and regulations meant to expedite such projects that qualify.

      Source
    • 1971

      In an effort to guide the use of shorelines in the state, these programs oversee the responsible development of Washington’s aquatic resources. These programs apply to both public and private uses for Washington’s, lake, river, wetland and marine shorelines. Working with local governments, these programs manage and research the effects of anthropogenic uses of shorelines, ensuring they meet the criteria of the Shoreline Management Act and enforcing the responsible permitting along all waterways.

      Source
    • 2017

      In an effort to further understand and conserve puget sound, the Puget Sound Partnership, an entity made up of governmental bodies, tribal communities, and researchers, this document outlines strategies to improve the nation's largest estuary. It is composed of two parts:

      1. The Comprehensive Plan that outlines overarching strategies for successful protection and restoration
      2. The Implementation Plan is the action component of the Action Agenda outlining regional priorities and projects that should be at the forefront of the Washington conservation community
      Source
    • 2018-2020

      In conjunction with NOAA, the Northwest Straits Commission created this document to highlight the most effective framework to conserve and restore kelp within puget sound. In addition, it works to fill information gaps in the research and general understanding of kelp annual cycles and stressors. This document is updated throughout the years with new data and project findings that help develop more efficient conservation practices.

      Source

    Restoration Logistics

    There are a myriad of different restoration strategies for near-shore habitats. When planning a restoration project there is a high degree of forethought needed to weed out confounding variables and to ensure the best possible chance for success. Below is a compilation of scientific knowledge to help make decisions that will do so; whether it be how to pick the best survey method, what environmental factors may contribute to habitat degradation, or how to manage the site after restoration has begun.

    Surveying

    • May 2017
      Geographic Focus: California, USA

      This paper details the applicability of Side Scan Sonar technology, in conjunction with Unmanned Surface Vehicles, in mapping seagrass meadows. Using ArcGIS and side scan software they determined that this is an effective and cost efficient method in determining the extent of meadows. However, it should be known that they did so by manually classifying/ground truthing the remote sensing data. More research will need to be done, as unsupervised/automatic classification did not produce quality results.

      Source
    • December 2012
      Geographic Focus: Spain + Mediterrenean Sea

      This study by Noela Sánchez-Carnero and her associates tests the applicability of, vertically mounted, side scan sonar. Using previously tested statistical mapping methods and computer algorithms to interpret sonar data, she finds that side scan sonar is effective in determining canopy height and distribution but is limited by seafloor variations.

      Source
    • November 2017
      Geographic Focus: Global

      This paper works to outline the different regions of seagrass distribution and what species reside there. It identifies 6 different regions (4 temperate, 2 tropical) and summarizes the biodiversity of seagrass species as well as the nuances of their local ecosystems.

      Source
    • 2018
      Geographic Focus: Catalina Island, CA

      This paper by Adam Obaza and his fellow researchers outlines the spatial extent, both mapping and depth profiling, of all seagrass meadows around Catalina Island. It also attempts to infer the biodiversity of the local meadows by counting what fish species were encountered during dives within these habitats.

      Source
    • 2002
      Geographic Focus: Global

      This book is a great resource for the basics behind marine vegetation habitats, specifically mangroves. It outlines their importance and ecosystem services as well as the largest dangers both now and going forward. Furthermore, it looks to outline and recommend successful restoration and conservation techniques.

      Source

    Disturbance Factors

    • September 2004
      Geographic Focus: Europe + Global

      This study attempts to understand the factors that affect resiliency and restoration timescales of seagrass species in Europe. It finds that the time it takes for meadows to rebound from disturbances depends greatly on the species and specifically the species growth rate. These time scales range from roughly a year for Zostera noltii to possibly centuries for Posidonia oceanica.

      Source
    • December 2006
      Geographic Focus: USA, Belize, Brazil

      Frederick Short and his cohorts analyze data from a cross country monitoring program, called SeagrassNet (c. 2001), to determine global patterns of seagrass habitat health as well as changes in environment variables. They find that their case studies saw decline based on eutrophication, climate change, and complex trophic interactions.

      Source
    • June 2017
      Geographic Focus: North America

      This paper tries to quantify carbon flux and carbon sequestration efficiency in natural seagrass beds, restoration seagrass beds, and barren patches in North America. They found that restored areas had a greater capacity to store carbon than any of the other sites. This emphasizes the need and motivation of restoration practices.

      Source

    Management

    • 2007
      Geographic Focus: United Kingdom

      Michael Elliott and his team review previous restoration projects in the United Kingdom with the aim to determine best and worst practices. They find that estuarine restoration projects can be split into 4 different categories:

      1. Natural recovery from a natural or anthropogenic change
      2. Anthropogenic interventions in response to a degraded environment
      3. Anthropogenic responses to a single stressor
      4. Habitat enhancement or creation

      Furthermore, they determine best practices which show that restoration projects rarely (if ever) produce habitats that function at levels that they naturally would have. In this case it then becomes most efficient to find the stressor causing degradation and simply remove it. Additionally, they place a huge emphasis on the need for further scientific knowledge outlining basic ecological knowledge, such as carrying capacities, regarding estuarine ecosystems.

      Source
    • 2013
      Geographic Focus: Mediterranean Sea

      Fabrizio Gianni and his fellow researchers set out to synthesize conservation strategies for Cystoseira forests, a type of macroalgae important to Mediterranean ecosystems. They state that the most important technique is reducing degradation factors; and point out that a good way to do this is with MPAs. The MPAs are a large focus of this piece as the researchers outline that Cystoseira forests within MPAs can act as propagules for natural restoration outside and inside the MPA and also act as prime real estate for anthropogenic restoration projects.

      Source
    • 2015
      Geographic Focus: USA, Australia, Europe

      Elisa Bayraktarov and her associates synthesize a wide variety of restoration studies in an attempt to assess the cost and success of restoration sites around the world. This literature review sources 235 studies from restoration projects involving coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass, as well as other species. They found important information such as the fact that restoration projects typically cost between $80,000-600,000 (2010). In addition, they determined that restoration projects in developing communities cost the least, while community- and volunteer-based projects were also relatively inexpensive. Lastly, restoration success depended largely on species, with coral and salt marshes performing best, while seagrasses performed the worst.

      Source

      • Location-Specific Results

    • March 2012
      Geographic Focus: China

      This analysis of China’s most notable coastal restoration projects, by Bin Chen and his associates, put the practices and methodologies of these projects under the microscope. They find that some of the largest hurdles for projects are:

      • A comprehensive understanding of the factors (economic, political and social) that affect setting up attainable and clear goals
      • Properly weighing the larger ecological functions of the restored species in question
      • Understanding the environmental variables causing habitat degradation BEFORE the restoration process is started
      • Emphasizing the need for future monitoring, management, and integration of new technologies, while being cognizant of possible degradation due to restoration practices
      Source
    • July 2008
      Geographic Focus: Chesapeake Bay, USA

      Kenneth Moore and fellow associates assess how grazing practices and marine herbivory affect the restoration success of marine vegetation. More specifically, they see that the success of Vallisneria americana restoration depends on low grazing during the early periods of restoration (specifically seeding) as well as the restoration method (transplants, seeding dispersal, seed pod planting). In addition, they monitor the effects of different methods on sedimentation and water quality.

      Source
    • January 2010
      Geographic Focus: Atlantic Coast, USA

      This paper, led by Robert Orth, compares the success and failures of Eelgrass restoration practices in Virginia against those in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. They attribute a higher success rate in Virginia, in part, to lower water temperatures and favorable policies that encourage restoration. While the largest hurdles in the two bay areas are low water quality combined with high water temperatures.

      Source
    • July 2008
      Geographic Focus: Chesapeake Bay, USA

      Shafer Deborah and colleagues attempted here to assess the feasibility of using seeds as the primary source of restoration in the Chesapeake Bay. They find that the speed of restoration is greatly increased, for example, 13.4 hectares of area were restored 2003-2008, while only 3.8 hectares of area were restored in the previous 21 years. While there could be many reasons for this, the difference is notable. This paper is best read in association with “The role of habitat and herbivory on the restoration of tidal freshwater submerged aquatic vegetation populations” as that paper is seemingly used as a resource in this paper.

      Source
    • 1997
      Geographic Focus: Washington, USA

      This document aims to outline conservation and restoration goals in Puget Sound, Washington. It sets out to determine what anthropogenic factors cause marine habitat decline and what species are most vulnerable to these declines. Additionally, it attempts to outline practices that best conserve and restore these habitats while recommending ways to improve awareness and management of declining habitats. Finally, they determine that successful protection and restoration require two prerequisites:

      1. A clear mandate for the management of ecological connectedness between all species
      2. Correct provision of the management resources
      Source
    • October 2017
      Geographic Focus: Sulawesi, Indonesia

      This study by Susan Williams and her colleagues highlights the importance of biodiversity in restoration efforts. They find that, in the Coral Triangle, valuable fisheries, coastal protection, and many other ecosystem services provided by intact habitats are on the decline and thus restoration is needed. Furthermore, it is important that seagrass restoration sites had more success when more species were transplanted. It is a simple, but important finding.

      Source

    Ecosystem Services

    Identifying the important services that near-shore habitats provide to their environment, as well as to society, is key to understanding how best to conserve and restore these habitats. Below is a collection of what is the most important and up to date scientific reports regarding the services provided by kelp and seagrass.

    Carbon Cycle

    • January 2017
      Geographic Focus: Global

      Carlos Duarte and his fellow researchers uncover an astonishing link between seagrass detritus and continental shelf/deep sea food webs. Moreover, by tracking the export of carbon outside of seagrass meadows, this paper highlights a forgotten portion of carbon sequestration provided by seagrasses. This finding helps the reader further understand the importance of marine ecosystem services and provides support for the need of restoration projects and the scope of their impacts.

      Source
    • February 2005
      Geographic Focus: Spain, Mediterranean Sea

      Frédéric Gazeau and his team attempt to profile the interplay between a photosynthetically dominated benthic environment and a planktonic, respiration dominated environment. They took samples of the surface water, as well as samples from within seagrass beds and measured their oxygen and carbon requirements over time. They found that benthic ecosystems dominated by Posidonia oceanica meadows themselves were not enough to supply the carbon needs of the heterotrophic environments near the surface.

      Source
    • June 2014
      Geographic Focus: Global

      Peter Macreadie and his associates synthesize information regarding the carbon sequestration potentials of seagrass, as well as provide a policy update of seagrass meadow carbon accounting. Additionally, the researchers outline a possible model for accounting for carbon flux within seagrass meadows, keeping in mind that the loss of such habitats would turn these imperative carbon sinks into carbon sources. Finally, they provide a list of research priorities that, if answered, would be likely to lead to policy change.

      Source
    • 2016
      Geographic Focus: Scandinavia

      Maria Emilia Röh and her counterparts quantify the direct carbon sequestration of eelgrass meadows in Finland and Denmark. In the process, they unearth a surprising discrepancy between the two similar habitats but nonetheless, support the need for seagrass habitats as a vital carbon sink.

      Source
    • 2017
      Geographic Focus: Global

      It is increasingly important to know just how much carbon can be sequestered by nearshore habitats and marine vegetation. In this paper, Carlos Duarte shows us the astonishing level of importance these habitats have in the global carbon cycle. The paper finds that these habitats could potentially sequester anywhere from 3%-33% of all oceanic carbon.

      Source
    • 2018
      Geographic Focus: Global

      Blue carbon sequestration by seagrass has long been a topic of debate and research. However, the same cannot be said for kelp forests. Kelp forests are some of the most productive environments on the globe; Dorte Krause-Jensen and his colleagues took a deeper look into their carbon sequestration potential. What they found was astonishing, as kelp could potentially sequester more carbon than all other marine blue carbon habitats combined.

      Source

      • Economic Valuation

    • August 2014
      Geographic Focus: Gran Canaria

      Cymodocea nodosa meadows were analyzed by Fernando Tuya and his fellow researchers in an attempt to fully categorize the monetary value of seagrasses. They state that this has been a particularly difficult job in the past due to the multitude of ecosystem services and inherent interconnectivity of marine systems. Thus, they focus their efforts on the value of fish biomass that inhabits the ecosystem, proving fruitful with a value of $655,953.63 USD per hectare. They also go further in estimating the value of fish who migrate out of these meadows, using them as nurseries early in their life stages.

      Source
    • October 2013
      Geographic Focus: Chile

      Julio Vasquez and his partners put kelp forests under an economic microscope. These researchers seek to determine the market value of raw kelp biomass, associated fisheries, climate change buffering, oxygen creation, value of non-commercial species, cultural value, and, interestingly enough, scientific value. In the end, they determined that kelp beds in Chile are estimated to be worth $540 million dollars.

      Source

      • Marine Habitats

    • September 2018
      Geographic Focus: Global

      This publication by Lina Mtwana and her associates outlines the broad knowledge gaps within seagrass service research. By presenting ways to fill these gaps the article provides an in depth view of seagrass ecosystem services. This paper is based on the 2016 international workshop, Seagrass ecosystem services – what's next?, held in the UK which brought together a myriad of experts presenting at the International Seagrass Biology Workshop, the largest gathering dedicated to seagrass ecosystems.

      Source
    • January 2010
      Geographic Focus: Channel Islands, Southern California

      This paper outlines the nuances of seagrass habitats within the Southern California Bight, specifically those found around the Northern Channel Islands. It includes detailed maps at the time, as well as in situ data depicting the food web and inhabitants of the local bed. It is an indispensable source for California specific research, however, must be cross-referenced due to the publishing date.

      Source
    • November 2012
      Geographic Focus: Mexico & The Caribbean Sea

      This study determines that there is an active pollination network in the seagrass beds of Thalassia testudinum in the Caribbean. These pollinators are typically mesofauna such as annelids, polychaetes, and many crustaceans.

      Source

      • Influencing Climate Change

    • December 2017
      Geographic Focus: Scotland, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia

      Maria Potouroglou and fellow researchers attempt to fill an important knowledge gap in seagrass ecosystem services. While much is known about sediment accretion variations within mangrove and salt marsh habitats over long periods of time, the same can not be said for seagrass. That is, until this study found a stark difference between the variability in elevation of the benthic environment when comparing vegetated and unvegetated areas.

      Source
    • October 2013
      Geographic Focus: Global

      Carlos Duarte and his associates assess the feasibility to use marine vegetation, such as kelp, seagrass, and mangroves, in eco-engineering and climate change adaptation strategies. It is known that these species provide many ecosystem services that could be useful and necessary in the face of climate change.

      Source
    • Not yet published
      Geographic Focus: Maine

      Nicole Price and her associates take an in-depth look at the interplay between ecosystem services provided by Sugar Kelp, the health of mussels, and ocean acidification. As of April 2020, the full paper has not yet been published, but the abstract and preliminary findings paint a clear picture. The cultivation of kelp and shellfish in congruence can greatly improve both the overall health and shell thickness of mussels, while the kelp ecosystems provide a variable “halo effect” that can be quantitatively measured.

      Source
    • Not yet published
      Geographic Focus: California

      Sarah Traiger and her associates study the variance of biochemical profiles in giant kelp forests. What they find is that the variability is more pronounced in the surface waters and is highly dependent on the time of day. Finally, this paper determines that kelp forests may have diel influence on pH and dissolved oxygen content due to their large productive canopy. However, the paper has yet to be published in its entirety and the above conclusions were made from the abstract only.

      Source