The benefits of bivalve reef restoration: A global synthesis of underrepresented species

Ruth H. Thurstan,Alvar Carranza,Flora Kent,Jorge Corrales,Bernadette Pogoda,Bryan DeAngelis,Boze Hancock,Philine S. E. zu Ermgassen,Ian McLeod,William G. Sanderson,Norbert Dankers,Heidi Alleway,Qing Liu

doi:10.1002/aqc.3410

Abstract

Abstract Bivalve habitat restoration is growing in geographic extent and scale globally. While addressing the wide‐scale loss of these biogenic habitats is still a key motivation behind restoration efforts, stakeholders and funders are increasingly drawn to shellfish restoration for the many ecosystem services these habitats provide. There is clear evidence for the provision of ecosystem services from species targeted for restoration in the USA, in particular Crassostrea virginica. Ecosystem services, however, remain largely unquantified or even undescribed for the majority of other species targeted for restoration. A structured review of the literature was undertaken and supplemented by expert knowledge to identify which ecosystem services are documented in the following other bivalve species targeted for restoration: Ostrea edulis, Ostrea angasi, Crassostrea rhizophorae, Perna canaliculus, Modiolus modiolus, Mytilus edulis, Mytilus platensis, Crassostrea gigas, Ostrea denselamellosa, Crassostrea ariakensis, and Crassostrea sikamea. Key knowledge gaps in quantifying ecosystem services and the ecosystem engineering properties of habitat‐building bivalves contributing to the provision of ecosystem services were identified. Ecosystem services with the potential to be widely applicable across bivalve habitat‐building species were identified. Though there is evidence that many of the ecosystem engineering properties that underpin the provision of ecosystem services are universal, the degree to which services are provided will vary between locations and species. Species‐specific, in situ, studies are needed in order to avoid the inappropriate transfer of the ecosystem service delivery between locations, and to further build support and understanding for these emerging targets of restoration.

Highlights

Biogenic reef habitats are raised, hard, complex structures created by the activity of animals
Bivalve reef restoration has become commonplace in coastal waters across the USA and is gaining momentum in other regions of the world
The restoration efforts are largely motivated by evidence of the widespread decline of these bivalve species (Beck et al, 2011; Fariñas-Franco et al, 2018; Pogoda et al, 2019), combined with evidence of the potential ecosystem services provided by these threatened habitats and the capacity of restored systems to enhance the delivery of services (Smaal, Ferreira, Grant, Petersen, & Strand, 2019)

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Biogenic reef habitats are raised, hard, complex structures created by the activity of animals. Biogenic bivalve beds and reefs historically dominated many temperate estuaries and coasts (e.g. Blake & zu Ermgassen, 2015; Drake, 1875) They were historically vast in spatial extent in many locations (see examples in zu Ermgassen, Hancock, et al (2016) and case studies in Supporting Information Table S1), and often provided substantial vertical relief (Brooks, 1884; Zhang, Xi, & Ge, 2004), forming unique, biodiverse, and productive habitats (Möbius, 1877). This summary is intended to support an understanding of when it is appropriate (or not) to assume delivery of ecosystem services across species

| METHODS

| RESULTS

| DISCUSSION