Search

Restoration of movement corridors is a key management action used to address threats to migratory and other mobile species. Yet, we lack restoration effectiveness studies that allow for species to reestablish naturally (i.e. without supplementation) following habitat reconnection that capture all phases (dispersal, growth, and regulation) of recovery, and that takes an ecosystems approach. We investigated the natural recovery of migratory anadromous Coho salmon following habitat reconnection across a 5‐km section of Rock Creek, a forested tributary of the Cedar River, Washington, United States, 3 km upstream of Landsburg Dam. The dam blocked upstream fish movement for 102 years until the completion of a fish ladder in 2003. We also evaluated the response of non‐migratory trout, which are closely related to Coho salmon. Juvenile Coho salmon natal to the Cedar River dispersed into Rock Creek for rearing until spawning there in 2007. After restoration, juvenile Coho salmon density (fish/m2) increased 18‐fold, approaching an asymptote (i.e. regulation phase) a decade later. Coho salmon recovery in Rock Creek was spatially variable, however, slowing with distance from the site of restoration. Trout density was also higher after restoration relative to before, likely due to several mechanisms, including increased capacity resulting from the reestablishment of marine organic matter subsidies delivered by spawning anadromous fish. Our study demonstrates that migratory species can recover naturally after the restoration of habitat connectivity and associated movement corridors. Furthermore, our results suggest that such actions can also benefit nontarget species by reestablishing key ecosystem links driven by the target species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Oyster reefs across North America have declined precipitously over the past 140 years. In Washington State, Olympia oyster Ostrea lurida reefs historically provided water filtration and nearshore structural habitat for fishes and invertebrates, but this species is now functionally extinct across its historical range. In place of these naturally occurring reefs, shellfish farms consisting mainly of nonnative Pacific oysters Magallana gigas now occupy patches of nearshore habitat across Washington. These farms modify intertidal substrate by adding structural habitat via suspended oyster grow bags, predator exclusion nets, loose oyster beds, and other shellfish grow‐out gear. As interest and investment in shellfish aquaculture have expanded both locally and globally, so has interest in how these farms modify intertidal habitat and whether the complex structure created by the shellfish and shellfish growing gear provides ecosystem services that are comparable to those of unfarmed areas, such as mudflats and eelgrass meadows. Methods: In this study, we sought to quantify how shellfish farms are used as foraging habitat for several common nearshore species of fish and crabs in Puget Sound, Washington. We used direct observations of species‐specific behaviors from underwater video to model how habitat type affected observed foraging rates. Result: We obtained a total of 393 crab observations, 431 demersal fish observations, and 1856 pelagic fish observations across all seven farm sites. Several common species of pelagic fish (e.g., surfperch [Embiotocidae]) used aquaculture‐growing gear more frequently than unfarmed areas as foraging habitat, but Metacarcinus spp. crabs displayed higher foraging frequency in unfarmed mudflats. Species groups such as sculpins (Cottidae) and small flatfish (Pleuronectidae) clearly used specific aquaculture‐growing gear and mudflats in roughly equal proportion. Conclusion: Our results indicate that shellfish farms within a larger nearshore habitat mosaic of eelgrass meadows, mudflats, bivalve aquaculture gear, and edge habitat can provide foraging habitat for several species of nearshore fish. Impact statementShellfish farms within a larger nearshore habitat mosaic of eelgrass meadows, mudflats, bivalve aquaculture gear, and edge habitat can provide foraging habitat for several species of nearshore fish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A pressing question for managing recovery of depressed or declining species is: Can habitat restoration increase resilience to climate change? We addressed this question for salmon populations with varying life histories, where resilience is defined as maintaining or increasing population size despite climate change effects. Previous studies indicate that several interrelated mechanisms may influence salmon resilience to climate change, including improving either habitat capacity or productivity, and ameliorating climate change effects on flood flow, low flow, or stream temperature. Using the Habitat Assessment and Restoration Planning (HARP) model, we first examined the relative importance of each mechanism for increasing salmon population resilience by comparing projected salmon spawner abundance for seven individual restoration action types under current and projected mid‐ and late‐century climates. We found that restoring habitats with the greatest restoration potential most increased resilience for all species, but the most beneficial restoration actions varied among species. Increasing habitat capacity and productivity both contributed to resilience, and ameliorating climate change effects was important in a few subbasins where the restoration opportunity was widespread. Cool‐water climate refuges contributed to resilience of some subpopulations by reducing late‐century declines in spawner abundance even without restoration. We also modeled more complex habitat restoration strategies comprised of several restoration action types at varying restoration intensities and found that the restoration action types and level of restoration effort needed to increase resilience varied among species. Less vulnerable species such as coho salmon responded well to four restoration actions (floodplain reconnection, wood augmentation, increased shade, and increased beaver ponds) applied at low restoration intensity and over a large area. More vulnerable species such as spring Chinook responded to fewer action types (floodplain reconnection, wood augmentation, and increased shade), but at much higher intensity and over a much smaller area. The analysis also identified important locations for each restoration action type for each species, which helps focus habitat restoration effort on areas that are likely to provide the largest increases in resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nearshore seagrass, kelp, and other macroalgae beds (submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV]) are productive and important ecosystems. Mitigating anthropogenic impacts on these habitats requires tools to quantify their ecological value and the debits and credits of impact and mitigation. To summarize and clarify the state of SAV habitat quantification and available tools, we searched peer‐reviewed literature and other agency documents for methods that either assigned ecological value to or calculated equivalencies between impact and mitigation in SAV. Out of 47 tools, there were 11 equivalency methods, 7 of which included a valuation component. The remaining valuation methods were most commonly designed for seagrasses and rocky intertidal macroalgae rather than canopy‐forming kelps. Tools were often designed to address specific resource policies and associated habitat evaluation. Frequent categories of tools and methods included those associated with habitat equivalency analyses and those that scored habitats relative to reference or ideal conditions, including models designed for habitat suitability indices and the European Union's Water and Marine Framework Directives. Over 29 tool input metrics spanned 3 spatial scales of SAV: individual shoots or stipes, bed or site, and landscape or region. The most common metric used for both seagrasses and macroalgae was cover. Seagrass tools also often employed density measures, and some categories used measures of tissue content (e.g., carbon, nitrogen). Macroalgal tools for rocky intertidal habitats frequently included species richness or incorporated indicator species to assess habitat. We provide a flowchart for decision‐makers to identify representative tools that may apply to their specific management needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural variation in the structure and function of aquatic communities along environmental or spatiotemporal gradients can influence how systems respond to biotic and abiotic disturbances. Although these context-dependent responses are a well-established element of basic ecology, they have received little attention from an ecotoxicological perspective., As the scope of freshwater bioassessment expands from single catchments to broad-scale, regional surveys, it has become apparent that community responses to contaminants can vary significantly among locations. This variability is generally considered a nuisance and an impediment to recognising ecological patterns; however, natural spatiotemporal variation in communities also provides opportunities to test hypotheses about context-dependent responses to contaminants in aquatic ecosystems., This study presents three examples of context-dependent responses of benthic stream communities to contaminants. We show how longitudinal variation in community composition, the development of tolerance to contaminants and exposure to multiple stressors influence the historical context of a community and hence may determine community responses to contaminants., Aquatic ecotoxicologists have made significant progress identifying abiotic factors that influence contaminant bioavailability and toxicity. A similar effort could be undertaken to identify specific ecological factors (e.g. community composition, natural disturbance regimes and life-history characteristics) that contribute to variation in susceptibility of communities to contaminants. Understanding the nature of context-dependent responses and the mechanisms responsible for variation among communities should be a key element of ecological risk assessment and a research priority in ecotoxicology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]