4.6 Article

Less Is More: Seagrass Restoration Success Using Less Vegetation per Area

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 15, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su151712937

关键词

coastal restoration; ecosystem restoration; seagrass; transplants; Zostera marina; Zostera noltei

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seagrass restoration in open coast environments is challenging due to high biomass requirements. The checkers design aims to optimize biomass usage by transplanting fewer sods in a checkerboard pattern. This study shows the promise of the checkers method for large-scale restoration, but careful consideration of location or storm-mitigating measures is essential.
Seagrass restoration in open coast environments presents unique challenges. Traditional sod transplant designs, though relatively successful in these environments, are impractical for large-scale restoration due to high biomass requirements. Here, we develop the checkers design, which aims to optimise the usage of biomass by transplanting fewer sods in a checkerboard pattern. We established six plots (9 m(2) each) for each species (Zostera marina and Zostera noltei), with 25 sods in each plot. The area, percent cover, density, and leaf length were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months. The plots located on the seaward end of the transplant design vanished over the winter, suggesting location-dependent survival influenced by winter storms. Nevertheless, both species exhibited increased percentages of cover, density, and vegetated area after one year, with variations between species. Z. noltei showed a slower expansion but greater resilience to winter, while Z. marina displayed a higher density and cover over the first 6 months but experienced area loss during the winter. Despite these differences, both species survived and increased vegetated areas after one year, indicating the viability and promise of the checkers method for large-scale restoration. However, careful consideration of location or storm-mitigating measures is essential for the successful implementation of this method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据