Search

The United Nations has declared 2021–2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and the Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. These declarations emphasise the importance of restoring degraded marine and coastal ecosystems and supporting research and knowledge. The number and scale of marine and coastal restoration projects have been increasing in Australia and New Zealand over the past 40 years. However, the lack of a central repository of projects and their results limits opportunities to share knowledge to improve effectiveness. To address this gap, we developed the Australian and New Zealand Marine and Coastal Restoration Database. Information for this database was gathered from publicly available documents (peer-reviewed journal articles and technical reports) and discussions with key organisations that lead projects in Australia and New Zealand. For each project, we recorded the start date, duration, spatial scale, location, details on monitoring, and success criteria. The database includes information up until 1 June 2020. It is available online via the Australian Coastal Restoration Network website.

Protected areas are important for preventing biodiversity declines, yet indicators of species' trends in protected areas rarely include threatened species. We use data from the first national Threatened Species Index developed in Australia to report on trends for threatened and near-threatened birds inside and outside terrestrial and marine protected areas. We adopted the Living Planet Index to calculate trends for 39 bird taxa at 16,742 monitoring sites (11,539 inside and 5,203 outside PAs) between 1985 and 2016. At a continental scale, the overall decline in the national index was smaller inside protected areas (66% decrease in average population abundance) than outside (77%), although after 2000 declines were greater within (36%) versus outside (26%) protected areas. Five out of seven jurisdictions showed similar switching in patterns over time. Protected areas initially had a greater net positive effect on trends of more imperiled birds than less imperiled birds, but between 2000 and 2016 declines of the most imperiled birds were greater inside protected areas than outside. Our analyses suggest that the effectiveness of Australia's protected area network at improving trends in threatened species has weakened, and support the hypothesis that trends for terrestrial birds outside PAs might be improving due to increased conservation efforts on private land. Although this study represents the most comprehensive collation of threatened species population time series and trends ever for Australia, the number of monitoring sites inside PAs was double that outside PAs, even though on average, more than 70% of threatened bird distributions occur outside PAs, with important gaps in monitoring across space, time and taxa that need to be filled to fully understand the effectiveness of public and private conservation actions at a national level. The results underline the importance of active management plus monitoring to track and report on long-term trends across species.

Quantifying species population trends is crucial for monitoring progress towards global conservation targets, justifying investments, planning targeted responses and raising awareness about threatened species. Many global indicators are slow in response and report on common species, not on those at greatest risk of extinction. Here we develop a Threatened Species Index as a dynamic tool for tracking annual changes in Australia's imperiled birds. Based on the Living Planet Index method and containing more than 17,000 time series for 65 bird taxa surveyed systematically, the index at its second iteration shows an average reduction of 59% between 1985 and 2016, and 44% between 2000 and 2016. Decreases seem most severe for shorebirds and terrestrial birds and least severe for seabirds. The index provides a potential means for measuring performance against the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 12, enabling governments, agencies and the public to observe changes in threatened species.

Coral reef ecosystems have suffered an unprecedented loss of habitat-forming hard corals in recent decades. While marine conservation has historically focused on passive habitat protection, demand for and interest in active restoration has been growing in recent decades. However, a disconnect between coral restoration practitioners, coral reef managers and scientists has resulted in a disjointed field where it is difficult to gain an overview of existing knowledge. To address this, we aimed to synthesise the available knowledge in a comprehensive global review of coral restoration methods, incorporating data from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, complemented with grey literature and through a survey of coral restoration practitioners. We found that coral restoration case studies are dominated by short-term projects, with 60% of all projects reporting less than 18 months of monitoring of the restored sites. Similarly, most projects are relatively small in spatial scale, with a median size of restored area of 100 m2. A diverse range of species are represented in the dataset, with 229 different species from 72 coral genera. Overall, coral restoration projects focused primarily on fast-growing branching corals (59% of studies), and report survival between 60 and 70%. To date, the relatively young field of coral restoration has been plagued by similar ‘growing pains’ as ecological restoration in other ecosystems. These include 1) a lack of clear and achievable objectives, 2) a lack of appropriate and standardised monitoring and reporting and, 3) poorly designed projects in relation to stated objectives. Mitigating these will be crucial to successfully scale up projects, and to retain public trust in restoration as a tool for resilience based management. Finally, while it is clear that practitioners have developed effective methods to successfully grow corals at small scales, it is critical not to view restoration as a replacement for meaningful action on climate

Active restoration is becoming an increasingly important conservation intervention to counteract the degradation of marine coastal ecosystems. Understanding what has motivated the scientific community to research the restoration of marine coastal ecosystems and how restoration research projects are funded is essential if we want to scale-up restoration interventions to meaningful extents. Here, we systematically review and synthesize data to understand the motivations for research on the restoration of coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, saltmarsh, and oyster reefs. We base this analysis off a published database of marine restoration studies, originally designed to estimate the cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration, derived from mostly scientific studies published in peer-reviewed and some gray literature. For the present study, the database was updated with fields aimed at assessing the motivations, outcomes, and funding sources for each project. We classify restoration motivations into five categories: biotic, experimental, idealistic, legislative, and pragmatic. Moreover, we evaluate the variables measured and outcomes reported by the researchers and evaluate whether projects adhered to the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER) standards for the practice of ecological restoration. The most common motivation of the scientific community to study restoration in marine coastal ecosystems was experimental i.e., to seek experimental data to answer ecological research questions or improve restoration approach, as expected since mostly peer-reviewed literature was evaluated here. There were differences in motivations among the five coastal ecosystems. For instance, biodiversity enhancement was the most common case for a biotic motivation in mangrove restoration projects. The most common metrics evaluated were growth/productivity, survivorship, habitat function, physical attributes, and reproduction. For most ecosystems, ecological outcomes were frequen

Subtropical reefs are important habitats for many marine species and for tourism and recreation. Yet, subtropical reefs are understudied, and detailed habitat maps are seldom available. Citizen science can help fill this gap, while fostering community engagement and education. In this study, 44 trained volunteers conducted an ecological assessment of subtropical Flinders Reef using established Reef Check and CoralWatch protocols. In 2017, 10 sites were monitored to provide comprehensive information on reef communities and to estimate potential local drivers of coral community structure. A detailed habitat map was produced by integrating underwater photos, depth measurements, wave-exposure modelling and satellite imagery. Surveys showed that coral cover ranged from 14% to 67%. Site location and wave exposure explained 47% and 16% respectively, of the variability in coral community composition. Butterflyfishes were the most abundant fish group, with few invertebrates being observed during the surveys. Reef impacts were three times lower than on other nearby subtropical reefs. These findings can be used to provide local information to spatial management and Marine Park planning. To increase the conservation benefits and to maintain the health of Flinders Reef, we recommend expanding the current protection zone from 500- to a 1000-m radius.

Coral reef restoration is an increasingly important part of tropical marine conservation. Information about what motivates coral reef restoration as well as its success and cost is not well understood but is needed to inform restoration decisions. We systematically review and synthesize data from mostly scientific studies published in peer‐reviewed and gray literature on the motivations for coral reef restoration, the variables measured, outcomes reported, the cost per hectare of the restoration project, the survival of restored corals, the duration of the project, and its overall spatial extent depending on the restoration technique employed. The main motivation to restore coral reefs for the projects assessed was to further our ecological knowledge and improve restoration techniques, with coral growth, productivity, and survival being the main variables measured. The median project cost was 400,000 US$/ha (2010 US$), ranging from 6,000 US$/ha for the nursery phase of coral gardening to 4,000,000 US$/ha for substrate addition to build an artificial reef. Restoration projects were mostly of short duration (1–2 years) and over small spatial extents (0.01 ha or 108 m2). Median reported survival of restored corals was 60.9%. Future research to survey practitioners who do not publish their discoveries would complement this work. Our findings and database provide critical data to inform future research in coral reef restoration.

Inadequate information on the geographical distribution of biodiversity hampers decision-making for conservation. Major efforts are underway to fill knowledge gaps, but there are increasing concerns that publishing the locations of species is dangerous, particularly for species at risk of exploitation. While we recognize that well-informed control of location data for highly sensitive taxa is necessary to avoid risks, such as poaching or habitat disturbance by recreational visitors, we argue that ignoring the benefits of sharing biodiversity data could unnecessarily obstruct conservation efforts for species and locations with low risks of exploitation. We provide a decision tree protocol for scientists that systematically considers both the risks of exploitation and potential benefits of increased conservation activities. Our protocol helps scientists assess the impacts of publishing biodiversity data and aims to enhance conservation opportunities, promote community engagement and reduce duplication of survey efforts.